THESIM
Towards Harmonised European
Statistics on International Migration
THESIM
Towards Harmonised European Statistics
on International Migration
edited by
Michel Poulain, Nicolas Perrin and Ann Singleton
This publication was co-ordinated by Laetitia Simar
© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2006
Dépôt légal : D/2005/9964/14
ISBN : 2-930344-95-4
Imprimé en Belgique
Tous droits de reproduction, d’adaptation ou de traduction, par quelque
procédé que ce soit, réservés pour tous pays, sauf autorisation de
l’éditeur ou de ses ayants droit.
Couverture : Isabelle Sion
Diffusion : www.i6doc.com, l’édition universitaire en ligne
Sur commande en librairie ou à
Diffusion universitaire CIACO
Grand-Rue, 2/14
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique
Tél. 32 10 47 33 78
Fax 32 10 45 73 50
[email protected]
List of Authors
Bilger Veronika, Research Officer, International Centre for Migration Policy
Development (ICMPD), Vienna, Austria, [email protected]
Breem Yves, Statistician, Office français de protection des réfugiés et
apatrides (OFPRA), Fontenay-sous-Bois, France, yves.breem@
ofpra.gouv.fr
Cantisani Giambattista, Researcher, on behalf of International Cooperation
Center for Statistics (ICstat), Roma, Italy, [email protected]
Greco Valeria, Researcher, on behalf of International Cooperation Center for
Statistics (ICstat), Roma, Italy, [email protected]
Heering Liesbeth, Researcher, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic
Institute (NIDI), The Hague, Netherlands, [email protected]
Herm Anne, Principal Analyst, Statistical Office of Estonia, detached national
expert to the Demographic and Migration Statistics Unit, Eurostat,
Luxembourg, [email protected]
Hofmann Martin, Research Officer, International Centre for Migration Policy
Development (ICMPD), Vienna, Austria, martin.hofmann@ icmpd.org
Jandl Michael, Senior Research Officer, International Centre for Migration
Policy Development (ICMPD), Vienna, Austria, michael.jandl
@icmpd.org
Kraler Albert, Research Officer, International Centre for Migration Policy
Development (ICMPD), Vienna, Austria, [email protected]
Kupiszewska Dorota, Principal Research Fellow, Central European Forum for
Migration Research (CEFMR), Warsaw, Poland, [email protected]
Kupiszewski Marek, Director, Central European Forum for Migration
Research (CEFMR), Warsaw, Poland, [email protected]
Nowok Beata, Researcher, Central European Forum for Migration Research
(CEFMR), Warsaw, Poland, [email protected]
T H E S I M
Perrin Nicolas, Researcher, Université catholique de Louvain - Groupe
d’étude de Démographie Appliquée (GéDAP), Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium, [email protected]
Poulain Michel, Research Associate FNRS (National Fund for Scientific
Research) and Professor, Université catholique de Louvain - Groupe
d’étude de Démographie Appliquée (GéDAP), Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium, [email protected]
Singleton Ann, Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of Poverty and Social
Justice - University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, ann.singleton@
bristol.ac.uk
Spaan Ernst, Researcher, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic
Institute (NIDI), The Hague, Netherlands, [email protected]
Thierry Xavier, Researcher, Institut National d’Études Démographiques
(INED), Paris, France, [email protected]
van der Erf Rob, Researcher, Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic
Institute (NIDI), The Hague, Netherlands, [email protected]
The THESIM Project, a 6th Framework Research Project financed by DG
Research (EU), was coordinated by the Groupe d’étude de Démographie
Appliquée (GéDAP), Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium,
http://www.uclouvain.be/gedap
The following teams were involved:
ƒ Central European Forum for Migration Research (CEFMR), Warsaw,
Poland, http://www.cefmr.pan.pl/
ƒ International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD),
Vienna, Austria, http://www.icmpd.org/
ƒ International Cooperation Center for Statistics (ICstat), Roma, Italy,
http://www.icstat.org/
ƒ Institut National d’Etudes Démographiques (INED), Paris, France,
http://www.ined.fr/
ƒ Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), The Hague,
Netherlands, http://www.nidi.knaw.nl/nl/
6
Table of Contents
List of Authors.………………...……………………..…….…………..…
List of Comparative Tables……………..………...…………..……….…
Glossary…………………………….……………...…………………....…
Acronyms and Abbreviations………………….………..……….………
Acknowledgements………………………....……………...………….…
Introduction…………………………….……………...………….………
5
9
11
19
25
27
Section 1.
EU Migration Policy and Data Collection…...……
33
Chapter 1.
The Evolution of EU Migration Policy and
Implications for Data Collection – Albert Kraler,
Michael Jandl and Martin Hofmann….….………….
Recommendations on International Migration
Statistics and Development of Data Collection at an
International Level – Anne Herm……………………
Chapter 2.
Section 2.
Administrative Systems of Data Collection…..…..
Chapter 3.
Registration of the Resident Population – Michel
Poulain…………………………………………………
Registration of Permits of Stay – Yves Breem and
Xavier Thierry………………………………………....
Registration of Asylum Seekers – Rob van der Erf,
Liesbeth Heering and Ernst Spaan………………..
Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship –
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco…………
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Section 3.
Chapter 7.
35
77
107
109
133
151
167
Producing statistics in accordance with the EU
Regulation…………………………………………….
179
Statistics on Population with Usual Residence –
Giambattista Cantisani and Michel Poulain……..
181
T H E S I M
Chapter 8.
Chapter 9.
Chapter 10.
Chapter 11.
Chapter 12.
Statistics on International Migration Flows – Beata
Nowok, Dorota Kupiszewska and Michel
Poulain………………………………………………….
Statistics on Residence Permits and Legal Entry –
Yves Breem and Xavier Thierry……………………..
Statistics on Asylum Applications – Rob van der
Erf, Liesbeth Heering and Ernst Spaan……………..
Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship –
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco…………
Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and
Removals: An Analysis of the CIREFI Data –
Michael Jandl and Albert Kraler…..………………...
Section 4.
Special Scientific Investigations……………………
Chapter 13.
A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum
Procedure – Rob van der Erf, Liesbeth Heering and
Ernst Spaan………………………….…………………
A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship
Statistics – Nicolas Perrin………….………………...
Links Between Legal and Illegal Migration –
Michael Jandl and Albert Kraler…………………….
Chapter 14.
Chapter 15.
203
233
249
261
271
287
289
321
337
Conclusion……………………………….……………...…………………
373
Country reports……………………………….………...………………...
379
Annexes………………………………….……………...…………………
657
General bibliography………………………………...…………………...
731
8
List of Comparative Tables
Comparative Table 1.
Comparative Table 2.
Comparative Table 3a.
Comparative Table 3b.
Comparative Table 4.
Comparative Table 5.
Comparative Table 6.
Comparative Table 7.
Comparative Table 8.
Comparative Table 9.
Comparative Table 10.
Comparative Table 11a.
The registration of the resident
population: general characteristics………
The registration of the resident
population: additional characteristics…...
Groups of persons included as residents
in the local or centralised population
registers………...…………………………...
Groups of persons included as residents
in the local or centralised population
registers………...…………………………...
Aliens registers and residence permit
databases……………………………………
Authorisation to stay more than three
months for non-EEA citizens……………..
Specific groups of non-EEA citizens
included in the residence permit
database…………………..………………...
Transfer of information between the
residence permit database and the
population registers…….…………………
Responsible
authorities
for
the
processing and registration of asylum
requests with type of database…………...
The asylum procedure and possible
outcomes……………………………………
Main characteristics of the population
and housing censuses……………………..
Groups of persons included in the total
resident population of population and
housing censuses…………………………..
126
128
130
131
143
145
148
149
164
165
194
196
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 11b.
Comparative Table 12.
Comparative Table 13.
Comparative Table 14.
Comparative Table 15.
Comparative Table 16.
Comparative Table 17a.
Comparative Table 17b.
Comparative Table 17c.
Comparative Table 18.
Comparative Table 19a.
Comparative Table 19b.
Comparative Table 20.
Groups of persons included in the total
resident population of population and
housing censuses…………………………..
Production of annual statistics on the
usually resident population………………
Production of statistics on the usually
resident population by country of
citizenship and country of birth………….
Data sources of statistics on international
migration flows………………………….…
Availability of statistics on international
migration flows……………………….……
Time criteria and compatibility of
international migration statistics with the
EU Regulation……………...………………
International migration between the EU
MS in 2002 according to receiving (I) and
sending country (E) (Eurostat database)...
International migration between the EU
MS in 2002 according to receiving (I) and
sending country (E) (Eurostat database)...
International migration between the EU
MS in 2002 according to receiving (I) and
sending country (E) (Eurostat database)...
Availability of statistics on residence
permits……………………………………...
Compliance of asylum statistics with the
EU Regulation……………………………...
Compliance of asylum statistics with the
EU Regulation……………………………...
Relation between asylum and migration
statistics……………………………………..
10
197
198
200
222
224
226
229
230
231
246
256
257
259
Glossary
This glossary includes working definition of key terms and concepts that
are often used in this book. These are not necessarily official definition but
scientific definition presented in order to help the reader to go easily
through this book. Some of these definitions are extracted from EU
directives and regulations, UN recommendations, DG JLS, EMN or IOM
glossaries1.
Alien: A person who is not a citizen or national of a given State. Synonym of
foreigner, non-citizen and non-national.
Appeal: A procedure undertaken to request a review of a decision by
bringing it to a higher authority; often the submission of a lower court’s
or agency’s decision to a higher court for review and possible reversal.
Applicant: A person who formally requests some government or legal
decision or action, such as the granting of refugee status, citizenship, a
visa or a residence permit.
Asylum seeker: A person who has requested asylum in a country and is
awaiting a decision on their application under relevant national and
international instruments (mostly under Article 1 of the Geneva
Convention related to the Status of Refugees of 28th July 1951). This
definition generally refers to all who apply for protection on an
individual basis, irrespective of whether they lodge their application on
arrival at an airport or land border, or from inside the country, and
irrespective of whether they entered the territory legally (e.g. as a
tourist) or illegally.
DG JLS, EMN and IOM Glossaries may be found on the following websites
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/index_en.htm, http://www.europeanmigration-network.org/and http://www.iom.int/.
1
T H E S I M
Citizen: A person who holds the citizenship of the country concerned. Often
synonym of national.
Citizenship: Term currently used by the international organisations to mean
the ‘legal bond between a person and a State’. The concept of ‘EU
citizen’ has been introduced for every person holding the citizenship of
an EU Member State. This brings along a distinction between citizenship
which may relate to a supranational body like EU and nationality which
means exclusively membership of a nation. Often synonym of
nationality.
Country of usual residence: The country in which a person lives, that is to say
the country in which the person has a place to live where they normally
spend their daily period of rest. Temporary travel outside this country
for purposes of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives,
business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage shall not change a
person’s country of usual residence. Usual residence is also a synonym
of habitual residence.
Dependant: In general use, one who relies on another for support. In the
migration context, a spouse and minor children are generally considered
‘dependants’, even if the spouse or partner is not financially dependent.
See also family members.
Domicile: See residence
Dublin Convention: Convention adopted in 1990 between by EU Member
States, determining which one is responsible for examining an
application for asylum lodged in one of the contracting States. The full
title is ‘The Convention Determining the State Responsible for
Examining Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member
States of the European Communities’. The Convention prevents the
same applicants from being examined by several EU Member States at
the same time, as well as ensuring that an asylum seeker is not redirected from State to State simply because no one will take the
responsibility of handling his/her case.
Ethnic nationality: Concept which may be considered as synonym either of
ethnicity or nationality, used in some countries in addition to
citizenship. Ethnic nationality is often a self-declared adhesion to a
specific ethnic group and this information is collected at census but also
sometimes in administrative registration. It should not to be confused
with citizenship.
EU citizen: See citizenship
12
Glossary
Family members: Somebody married to the person concerned as well as
dependent children and other dependent persons who are recognised as
members of that person’s family in procedures for the granting of visas,
residence permits, citizenship, any refugee status etc. Family members
may not be included in relevant statistics as they are not always required
to make a separate application.
Family reunification/reunion process: Whereby family members already
separated through forced or voluntary migration regroup in a country
other than the one of their origin. It is a reason for being granted a visa
or a residence permit.
Foreigner: Usually a synonym of alien, non-citizen and non-national.
Freedom of movement: According the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
EU adopted in 2000, every EU citizen is entitled to travel freely around
the EU Member States and settle anywhere within its territory without
special formalities. This fundamental right of free movement extends to
members of the EU citizen's family and applies regardless of their
citizenship, situation or the reason for travel or residence. Some EU
Member States have applied transitional arrangements that restrict
freedom of movement of citizens of new Member States.
Geneva Convention status: Refugee status granted within the meaning of
Article 1 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of
28th July 1951 to a person “owing to well-founded fear of being
persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his
nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a
nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual
residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is
unwilling to return to it”.
Identity document: A piece of documentation designed to prove the identity
of the person carrying it, such as a passport, ID card or travel document.
Illegal entry: Act of crossing borders without complying with the necessary
requirements for legal entry into the receiving State.
Illegal/irregular migration: These terms are often used interchangeably in
policy contexts. A commonly used approach is to consider that ‘illegal
migration’ refers to the illegal crossing of borders only, while ‘irregular
migration’ covers a number of irregularities in the status of migrants
(e.g. illegal residence after the expiry of visas (visa over-stayers) or the
13
T H E S I M
illegal employment of foreigners in an otherwise ‘regular’ situation). At
EU level, the term ‘illegal migration’ is generally used to refer to the
illegal entry and/or stay of international migrants who are citizens of
third countries. These and other specific terms will be explained where
appropriate.
International immigration: Within the framework of the EU Regulation an
international immigration is defined as a movement of a person who
enters a country to establish his/her new place of usual residence in the
territory of the country concerned for a period that is, or is expected to
be, of at least twelve months, having previously been usually resident
outside the country. This definition is identical to the UN recommended
definition of long-term immigration.
International emigration: Within the framework of the EU Regulation an
international emigration is defined as a movement of a person who
leaves a country to establish his/her new place of usual residence
outside the territory of the country concerned for a period that is, or is
expected to be, of at least twelve months, having previously been
usually resident within the country. This definition is identical to the
UN recommended definition of long-term emigration.
International immigrant: A natural person undertaking an international
immigration.
International emigrant: A natural person undertaking an international
emigration.
International protection: EU concept introduced in order to replace the
protection status previously provided on the basis of unharmonised
rules by each EU Member State. This new concept is comprised of the
two separate but complementary elements of Geneva Convention
refugee status and subsidiary protection status.
Ius sanguinis/ ius soli: A legal basis for determining citizenship respectively
by blood line or by place of birth. Most countries use a combination of
these two bases of citizenship law to grant citizenship.
Long-term migrant: Concept proposed in the UN recommendations on
international migration statistics (UN, 1997) to specify migrants whose
duration of stay in the country of immigration or outside the country of
emigration is one year or more. This definition is compatible with the
definition of international immigrant and international emigrant
proposed above and included in the EU Regulation.
14
Glossary
Long-term resident: Status that third-country nationals may acquire if they
have been resident in an EU Member State on a continuous and legal
base for at least five year. Periods of residence as an asylum seeker or as
a person enjoying temporary protection are not taken into account
unless the applicant for long-term resident status is subsequently
recognized as a refugee2.
Migration: This broad definition includes all types of movements involving a
change of residence, either across an international border, or within a
State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of
movement of people, whatever its length, composition or causes; it
includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, uprooted people, and
economic migrants.
National: A person who holds the nationality or citizenship of a given State.
Usually synonym of citizen.
Nationality: Membership of a nation. In most EU Member States it is a
synonym of citizenship while in the new Member States of Central and
Eastern Europe it is often a synonym of ethnic nationality or ethnicity.
Naturalisation: Process of granting by a State of its citizenship to an alien
through a formal act on the application of the individual concerned.
International law does not provide detailed rules for naturalisation, but
it recognizes the competence of every State to naturalise those who are
not its nationals and who apply to become its nationals.
Net migration: Migration balance, resulting from the difference between
number of immigrations and emigrations. This balance is called net
immigration when immigrations exceed emigrations and net emigration
when emigrations exceed immigrations. It may also be calculated by
subtracting natural increase (difference between number of births and
deaths) from the change in the total population. See also total migration.
Non-national: Synonym of alien, foreigner and non-citizen. See also national.
Permit: Document, usually issued by a government authority, which allows
something to exist or someone to perform certain acts or services. In the
migration context, reference to residence permits or work permits is
common.
Place of usual residence: See country of usual residence and residence.
2
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25th November 2003, p. 44
15
T H E S I M
Population stock: In a broad sense, all persons living on a given territory at a
given time. More precisely the de facto population is that living
effectively on the territory as a matter of fact while the de jure population
is that living on the territory and having the legal right to do so. The
latter is also called the legal population and is often the only one
considered from an administrative point of view.
Readmission agreement: Agreement which addresses procedures for one State
to return individuals (own national, third-country national or stateless
person) in an irregular situation to their home State or a State through
which they passed en route to the State which seeks to return them.
Refugee: This term refers strictly speaking to those asylum seekers who have
been granted Geneva Convention status. However it is commonly used
to refer to all those asylum applicants who receive any international
protection.
Resettlement: Authorisation given to third-country nationals or stateless
persons to reside in one of the EU Member States for the purpose of
international protection within the framework of a national or EU
resettlement scheme.
Residence: The fact of living in a given place for some time; the place where
one actually lives to be distinguished from the domicile that is
considered as the legal or de jure place of residence. A person thus may
have more than one place of residence at a time but only one domicile or
legal place of residence. In addition among all places of residence, the
one where the person concerned spends most of his/her daily rest is
called the place of usual residence.
Residence permit: Document issued by a State confirming that the alien has
the right to live therein on a permanent (unlimited) basis (permanent
residence permit) or for a fixed duration of time (temporary residence
permit).
Return migration: In the general migration literature it means the movement
of a person returning to his/her country of origin or habitual residence
usually after spending at least one year in another country. In the spirit
of the EU Regulation returns include solely voluntary repatriations and
non-voluntary repatriations of illegal migrants following an
administrative or judicial order to leave, whether undertaken as part of a
voluntary return scheme or whether enforced.
Safe country of origin: A country of origin of asylum seekers is considered safe
if it does not generally produces refugees. Receiving countries may use
16
Glossary
the concept of safe country of origin as a basis for rejecting summarily
(without examination of the merits) particular groups or categories of
asylum seekers.
Safe third country: A safe third country is considered by a receiving country
to be any other country, not being the country of origin, in which an
asylum seeker has found or might have found protection. The notion of
safe third country (protection elsewhere/first asylum principle) is often
used as a criterion of admissibility to the refugee determination
procedure.
Short-term migrant: Concept proposed in the UN recommendations on
international migration statistics to specify migrants whose duration of
stay in the country (immigration) or outside the country (emigration) is
more than three months and less than one year. This concept is not
considered in the EU Regulation.
Stateless person: A person who is not considered as a national by any State
under the operation of its law3. As such, a stateless person lacks those
rights attributable to citizenship.
Subsidiary protection status: A form of international protection status, separate
but complementary to Geneva Convention refugee status, granted by a
Member State to a third-country national or stateless person who is not a
refugee but is otherwise in need of international protection and is
admitted as such to the territory of this Member State.
Temporary protection: Procedure of exceptional character to provide, in the
event of a mass influx or imminent mass influx of displaced persons
from third countries who are unable to return to their country of origin,
immediate and temporary protection to such persons, in particular if
there is also a risk that the asylum system will be unable to process this
influx without adverse effects to its efficient operation, in the interests of
the persons concerned and other persons requesting protection.
Third-country national: Any person who is not a citizen of the European
Union. See EU citizen.
Total migration: The sum of the immigrations and emigrations yields the total
volume of migration, and is termed total migration.
Unaccompanied minors: A third-country national or stateless person below the
age of eighteen, who arrives on the territory of a Member State not
3
Art. 1, UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954.
17
T H E S I M
accompanied by an adult responsible for them whether by law or
custom, and for as long as they are not effectively taken into the care of
such a person. It includes minors who are left unaccompanied after they
have entered the territory of the Member States.
Visa: An endorsement by a consular officer in a passport or a certificate of
identity that indicates that the officer, at the time of issuance, believes
the holder to fall within a category of non-nationals who can be
admitted under the national laws. A visa establishes the criteria of
admission into a State. Different types of visas may be granted
depending on the purpose of the request and in some countries special
long-term visas are considered as first residence permits.
18
Acronyms and Abbreviations
European geo-political entities considered in this book
CoE: Council of Europe, composed of 46 European countries, of which 21 are
in Central or Eastern Europe.
EFTA: European Free Trade Association,
Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
composed
of
Iceland,
EU: European Union.
EU 25: 25 Member States of the European Union (as on 1st May 2004).
EU MS: Member State(s) of the European Union.
EEA: The European Economic Area, composed of all 25 EU MS plus Iceland,
Liechtenstein and Norway. In most national regulations Swiss citizens
are considered on the same basis as EEA citizens as far as authorisation
to stay and residence permits are concerned. Therefore in this book
when EEA citizens are mentioned, Swiss citizens should be
systematically added. This means that these national regulations apply
in a similar way to all EU and EFTA citizens, as EFTA is composed of
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
UNECE: The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, composed
of 55 countries of Europe and Northern America.
T H E S I M
List of abbreviations of the 25 EU MS and order of countries
in the comparative tables and in the country reports
Acronym
25 EU MS
BE
Belgium
CZ
Czech Republic
DK
Denmark
DE
Germany
EE
Estonia
EL
Greece
ES
Spain
FR
France
IE
Ireland
IT
Italy
CY
Cyprus
LV
Latvia
LT
Lithuania
LU
Luxembourg
HU
Hungary
MT
Malta
NL
Netherlands
AT
Austria
PL
Poland
PT
Portugal
SI
Slovenia
SK
Slovak Republic
FI
Finland
SE
Sweden
UK
United Kingdom
20
Acronyms and Abbreviations
List of other acronyms and abbreviations
AHIG : Ad-hoc Immigration Group of Senior Officials
CCR : Central Civil Register
CES : Conference of European Statisticians
CIREA : Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum
CIREFI : Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing
of Borders and Immigration
CoE : Council of Europe
COREPER : Committee of Permanent Representatives
CPR : Central Population Register
DG JLS : Directorate-General for Freedom, Security and Justice, previously
DG JAI (Directorate-General Justice and Home Affairs)
ECRE : European Council on Refugees and Exiles
EEA : European Economic Area
EEC : European Economic Community
EFTA : European Free Trade Association
EMN : European Migration Network
ERF : European Refugee Fund
ESCWA : United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
EU : European Union
EU MS : European Union Member State(s)
EUMC : European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (to
become the ‘Fundamental Rights Agency’)
EURODAC : European Dactylographic System (System for the Comparison
of Fingerprints of Asylum Applicants and Illegal Immigrants)
EUROSTAT : Statistical Office of the European Communities (also SOEC)
HLWG : High Level Working Group (of the Council of the European Union)
on Asylum and Migration
ID card : Identification card
21
T H E S I M
IGC : Inter-Governmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration
Policies
ILM : International Labour Migration Database
ILO : International Labour Office
ILOs : Immigration Liaison Officers
IOM : International Organisation for Migration
LCR : Local Civil Register
LPR : Local Population Register
MEDSTAT : European Commission Programme on Euro-Mediterranean
Statistical Cooperation
NATAC : Acquisition of Nationality in EU Member States (an EU-funded
research project)
NATO : North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NIEPS : Network for Integrated European Population Studies
NSI : National Statistical Institute(s)
OECD : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
PIN : Personal Identification Number
SCIFA : Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (a
committee of the Council of the European Union, composed of senior
officials and positioned between the Working Parties and COREPER)
SLG : Starting Line Group
SOPEMI : A French acronym for the permanent system of monitoring of
migration movements and policies (a network of the OECD)
TEC : Treaty Establishing the European Community
TEU : Treaty Establishing the European Union
THESIM : Towards Harmonised European Statistics on International
Migration
UN : United Nations
UNCAD : United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment ot Punishment
UNCTAD : United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
22
Acronyms and Abbreviations
UNECE : United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNHCR : United Nations High Commissionner for Refugees
UNPD : United Nations Population Division
UNSD : United Nations Statistical Division
23
Acknowledgements
The editors would like to thank:
ƒ The Directorate-General for Research of the European Commission,
which provided funding for the THESIM Project within the 6th
Framework Programme of Research.
ƒ Officials of the European Commission, who provided invaluable
support and advice to the THESIM Project Team: Giulia Amaducci
(Directorate-General for Research); Jordi Garcia-Martinez, Sandra
Pratt, Stephen Davies (Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and
Security), Michail Skaliotis, David Thorogood (Eurostat).
ƒ Members of the THESIM Advisory Committee: John Kelly (formerly
UNECE), Mauri Nieminen (Statistics Finland).
ƒ All National Contact Points and Observers of the European
Migration Network and all collaborating officials of National
Statistical Offices and involved National Ministries in the EU
Member States.
ƒ All the THESIM Project Teams, especially CEFMR in Warsaw and
INED in Paris for their organisation of key work sessions.
ƒ Margaret Mulcahy (Centre de Traduction de Louvain) and Alison
Kelly (English Reviser) for carrying out speedily and efficiently the
English revision and translation.
ƒ Sian White (University of Bristol) and Laura McGrath. Our editorial
work benefited from their support and advice.
ƒ Enda O’Doherty (Dublin) who provided essential, rigorous and
invaluable final editorial advice.
ƒ Bérengère Deprez (Presses universitaires de Louvain) for efficient
and professional support and advice as Publisher’s liaison and to the
printing team at CIACO, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Finally, special thanks to our loved ones for their support.
Introduction
Migration and International Protection in
the European Union: A Dynamic Approach
to Measurement
Ann Singleton
International migration and asylum-seeking are now at the top of the
European Union’s policy agenda as the political importance of these policy
areas has grown, during the past decade, at national and European level. At
the same time, processes of economic globalisation, demographic and
environmental change, conflict and war have resulted in global movements
of migrants and asylum seekers. The competence of national authorities to
develop and implement fair and effective migration policies is being
challenged. Notwithstanding this policy importance, in the absence of a
coherent legal basis for the collection of migration statistics, the accurate
measurement of the migration phenomena in question has remained an
elusive goal. This book will make an innovative contribution to efforts to
improve the current system, to support the implementation of proposed
legislation and to improve the future quality, reliability and comparability of
statistics on migration and international protection in the European Union.
Communitarisation of EU policy and law in this field has, to varying
degrees of success, increasingly driven the demand for reliable and timely
Community statistics. In EU decision-making and policy circles, there is now
a recognition that the apparently contradictory needs for reliable but timely
data must be reconciled and that priority must be given to improving the
quality, reliability and comparability of statistical data on migration. The
latest official recognition of this is evident in the action plan under the
Hague Programme, agreed on 31st May 2005 between the Council and the
Commission1. The action plan includes specific points on measures to
improve the common analysis of migratory phenomena in all their aspects
(reinforcing the collection, provision, exchange and efficient use of up-todate information and data). In recognition of this need, the European
Commission adopted in September 2005 a proposal for a Regulation2 to
1 Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on Freedom,
Security and Justice in the European Union (9778/02/05 REV2).
2 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community
statistics on migration and international protection COM (2005) 375 Annex 2).
T H E S I M
govern the supply of national statistics to the EU. All references to ‘the
Regulation’ in this book refer to this version. The reader is cautioned to bear
in mind that some changes may have taken place during the progress of the
Regulation through the co-decision process.
For the first time there will be a comprehensive legal basis underpinning
the collection, processing and dissemination of Community migration
statistics in all twenty-five EU Member States. At the time of writing, the
Regulation is proceeding through the co-decision procedure and discussions
are continuing in the relevant working groups of the Council and the
European Parliament. The Regulation is likely to be adopted, possibly with
revisions, in early 2007. This book will make a unique and essential
contribution to its implementation.
For the years 2004-2006, the Directorate-General for Research of the
European Commission launched the 6th Framework Programme of Research.
The overall objective of all policy-orientated project research under priority 8
of this Framework Programme is to support the formulation and
implementation of Community policies, by providing scientific
contributions to policies targeted precisely towards needs, coherent across
the various Community policy areas, and sensitive to changes in policies as
they take place. Among the initial research priorities defined in the specific
programme ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’, on
the basis of foreseeable needs, providing health, security and opportunity to
the people of Europe is a key issue. The ‘securitisation’ of policy debates has
also driven the demand for a better understanding of migration and refugee
flows and their underlying factors. In order to meet the increased demand,
the following research priority was established in the 6th Framework:
(Task 5) Better sources for statistics for a better knowledge on
migration flows to the EU: to describe the national system of gathering
information on inflows and outflows of foreigners, to provide
comparative tables on similarities and differences between Member
States, to identify the problems resulting from these differences with a
view to the collection of different forms of data on migration flows and to
identify the consequences for collecting, disseminating and analysing
such data at a supranational level; to describe and analyse activities and
measures undertaken by international organisations (including UN,
Council of Europe) and at national level to overcome these problems.
The THESIM Project (Towards Harmonised European Statistics on
International Migration) was selected for funding by DG Research. The
project aimed to meet ongoing needs as well as to support the
implementation at national level of the Regulation. It provided continuity
28
Introduction
with previous efforts in concentrating on the availability and reliability of
national migration and asylum statistics and their comparability at EU level.
For all statistical data requested in the Regulation, an investigation was
carried out to identify:
ƒ how to find the available data;
ƒ how reliable the data are and how this might be improved;
ƒ how internationally comparable data might be compiled to produce
Community statistics for the EU.
THESIM started in April 2004 and ended in August 2005. The intensive
work over seventeen months was co-ordinated by Michel Poulain and
involved scientific teams based in seven EU countries. A final report was
submitted to DG Research in October 2005. The findings of the report were
based on all the information collected through the twenty-five national
meetings, organised with the help of all National Statistical Institutes (NSI)
and the National Contact Points (NCP) of the European Migration Network
(EMN) developed by DG Justice, Freedom and Security (DG JLS). The work
developed under the THESIM project is an example of ‘action research’. It
brought together a network of experts working at the European level and
acted as a catalyst to further networking between statisticians, data suppliers
and policy makers at national level. The research aims were primarily to
provide policy support to officials in the European Commission, but also to
help build collaborative networks at national level, which will be the basis
for producing Community statistics in this field.
The Project Team prepared draft reports for each country, which were
discussed at the twenty-five national meetings of data suppliers, users and
academic experts. More than 300 expert officials were involved in the
process, which involved the first systematic presentation of the draft
Regulation at national level and involved a detailed examination of the
potential for each Member State to meet its requirements. Officials of all
Ministries of the Interior and NSI were fully involved. The resulting national
reports were then analysed and synthetic overview tables were produced for
the whole EU, identifying underlying definitions, coverage and data
availability for each variable required by the Regulation. Particular attention
was made to maintaining active, collaborative working relationships with
data suppliers and policy officials in each of the countries.
Many readers new to the topic may be surprised by the complexity of the
problems involved in attempting to compile harmonised, reliable and timely
statistics in such a high profile policy area. As is the case with many other
scientific and policy fields, this work did not suddenly appear simply in
response to a need to meet immediate policy demands. It builds upon a long
history of scientific enquiry in similar and related research projects. Michel
29
T H E S I M
Poulain, Ann Singleton and many of the authors have pioneered work in
this field for more than a decade3 (Poulain, Debuisson and Eggerickx, 1990;
Salt, Singleton and Hogarth, 1994; Poulain, 1997; Singleton and Albiser, 2002;
Poulain and Herm, 2003).
The THESIM Project was the most exhaustive and complete exercise of its
kind undertaken to date. It represents a step forward in practice from what
can be a dismal and dispiriting task of documenting the problems. It is an
example of how the academic community, national officials and EU policy
makers can develop strong collaborative working links and take action to
improve data availability and policy relevance.
The finalised country reports presented in the annex of this book contain
detailed information on all national data sources, allowing an evaluation of
their potential to meet the requirements of the Regulation. These detailed
reports are shortened versions of the full country reports submitted as part
of the THESIM Project’s final report to the European Commission. They
were prepared by the scientific teams (rather than being official reports from
each of the countries) and have been checked for accuracy by national
officials.
This book is a further product of the THESIM Project, intended for a
wider audience of users of migration and asylum data and statistics. It has
been produced to support the work of all actors involved, those who supply
data to the EU, those who process and disseminate the statistics and the end
users. The book provides an up-to-date and comprehensive picture of the
whole system of statistical data sources on international migration and
asylum in the EU. It should be used as a reference text on the situation that
pertained up to September 2005. In a rapidly changing world, the reader is
advised that migration policy as well as (and/or consequently) datacollection systems may change in country over time. Nonetheless, it will be a
unique resource for the informed user and interested lay person. In
particular it should be of use to the intended audiences for the book:
ƒ European Commission officials working on policy development in
areas related to migration, development, the labour market and
integration of third-country nationals;
ƒ Statisticians in Eurostat with responsibility for the Commission’s
databases on asylum and international migration;
3 The first Singleton and Poulain collaboration was with John Salt in 1992 and on a succession of
projects with research teams at UCL (London), UCL (Belgium), NIDI (The Hague) and World
Systems (Europe) Ltd (Luxembourg). This European Commission, Eurostat-funded work
complemented that of other international organisations, as documented in Chapter 2.
30
Introduction
ƒ Data suppliers responsible for meeting the requirements of the
European Union, set out in the Regulation and subsequent
implementing measures;
ƒ Users of the data, especially policy makers at national and EU level.
ƒ The scientific community of users – academics and students
researching international migration and asylum;
ƒ Members of the public, journalists and NGOs and lawyers who wish
to gain a better understanding of the figures published in this highly
contentious field.
The intention is also to complement the statistical work of the United
Nations’ Population and Statistical Divisions (UNPD and UNSD) as well as
that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in
attempting to develop European statistics which may also be comparable
with global migration statistics.
The chapters are presented in four sections. The first section provides an
historical overview of the development of EU migration policy and the
background of international co-operation activities to improve migration
statistics. It sets the context for the current initiatives of the EU.
The second section describes the administrative systems and processes
which produce the data and the statistics at the national level. The
registration of the resident population, residence permits, asylum and
change of citizenship are all considered in depth. In section three the
potential of these national systems to meet the data request of the EU
Regulation is investigated.
In addition to the twenty-five country reports, the book contains a
comprehensive set of overview reports on various topics, including the
history of international attempts to improve migration statistics. The fourth
section presents scientific investigations into different topics, not included in
the EU Regulation but closely related, which represent possible future
improvements to the policy support potential of the data collection. These
academic studies of key aspects of methodology, including proposals for
new methodologies, provide a unique fusion of practical, academic and
policy-oriented insights, essential to the successful implementation of the
Regulation.
The only migration or asylum figures in the book are those included as
examples and, in a few cases, as part of studies. Up-to-date statistics may be
obtained from an increasing number of online sources, on the websites of
each NSI, national ministries and of the European Commission (Eurostat
and DG JLS) and other international bodies as well as research institutions
(Annex 7). This book both complements the available data with related
methodological information and provides an indication of the potential of
31
T H E S I M
existing data sources to provide more statistics in the future. It makes
recommendations for improvements which could enable or assist national
sources and Eurostat to meet the requirements of the Regulation.
Notwithstanding the strong policy-related orientation of the THESIM
Project report and of this book, all contents and recommendations have been
written by the scientific team and do not represent an official position. Legal
procedures and administrative procedures are presented only as they relate
to the production of official data and statistics. These descriptions should
not be taken as definitive statements of the legal situation. It is hoped that
this work will be of service to all users and will provide scientific support to
policy development and policy officials as well as the tools for the scientific
and lay community to monitor the development and implementation of
common EU policies on migration and international protection.
Finally, a new emphasis on transparency in the EU policy field, together
with improved availability and increased use of the data is resulting in
improvements in the quality of user feedback, an essential re-requisite to the
future improvement of data quality. In order to build on this opportunity,
data suppliers in general and Eurostat in particular need to be actively
monitoring policy developments and user needs and anticipating future
demand for new data variables. For this to be effective, continued active
collaboration between data suppliers, statisticians, policy makers and data
users will be essential. The dynamic nature of the subject under scrutiny
needs to be matched by dynamism in the system of knowledge production.
In a book of this kind, it is certain that some information will have
changed between the time of writing and of publication. As far as possible,
the information is correct up to mid-2005. Any comments, corrections or
suggestions would be gratefully received (email: Michel.Poulain@
sped.ucl.ac.be; [email protected]).
32
Section 1
EU Migration Policy and Data Collection
Chapter 1
The Evolution of EU Migration Policy and
Implications for Data Collection
Albert Kraler, Michael Jandl and Martin Hofmann
Introduction
When the European Coal and Steel Community was created in the 1950s
by the Treaty of Paris (1951), followed by the formation of the European
Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community
(Treaties of Rome, 1957), the primary objective was to create a common
European market, by reducing intra-European trade barriers, harmonising
economic policy and other measures. The European Communities1 were
mainly concerned with economic policies in a rather narrow sense and only
gradually reached out to other policy areas, often because there were
incentives in terms of economic policy to do so. Migration policy (more
precisely a common policy towards the immigration of third-country
nationals) was simply not on the agenda and remained the sole prerogative
of EU MS for some time to come. Even at the national level, individual
countries took a laissez-faire approach to migration during much of the
1950s and 1960s and migration was – on the whole – not regarded as an
important policy issue. It was seen, if at all, as an issue of economic, or more
precisely, labour market policy. This changed only in the late 1960s, and
particularly after the first oil-price shock in 1973, when immigration policy
became more politicised and states increasingly sought to restrict or at least
control the immigration of third-country nationals (Huysmans, 2000: 4). It
was in this context that formal intergovernmental cooperation on migration
policy towards third-country nationals was seriously considered for the first
time at the European Summit of Paris in 1974 (Klos, 1998: 28).
1 Six countries (France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and
Luxembourg) were members of the three original Communities. When, in 1965, the so-called
‘Merger Treaty’ consolidated them into a single group, with a single Commission and a
common Council of the European Union, the three Communities became known as the
European Communities.
T H E S I M
1. The European Economic Community as a migration
regime
Despite the priority given from the start to economic and labour market
policies, the European Communities, or more precisely the European
Economic Community (EEC)2, was also a project intrinsically concerned
with migration, in the sense that trans-border mobility of Community
citizens within the EC was to be facilitated, and by the 1990s, largely treated
as internal migration. Today, ‘the community encompasses two very
separate legal regimes relating to migration − on the one hand there is a
highly developed EC legal framework regarding the right of nationals of the
Member States to migrate and seek employment in any one of the other
Member States’, and, on the other, a much less clear legal regime relating to
third-country nationals (Guild, 2004: 47).
At the insistence of Italy, freedom of movement was included in the
provisions of the Treaties of Rome. In principle, citizens of EC Member
States now had the right to travel freely to other Member States, as well as to
seek employment and to work in other Member States3 (Articles 39 and 43
EC; Brinkmann, 2004: 183; Favell and Hansen, 2002: 585; Stalker, 2002: 167;
and Tomei, 1997: 13). However, the principle of freedom of movement was
regarded as a functional right (as were the other freedoms), and deemed a
necessary requirement for creating a common market (Geddes, 2000a: 44).
As a corollary, it was restricted to salaried workers and their immediate
family members (Menz, 2002: 723). The Treaty stated that freedom of
movement was, as part of a common market, to be established by 1st January
1970 (Geddes, 2000a: 45). Freedom of movement was finally put into practice
via the adoption of a directive and a regulation, in 19684. It was only later
that the principle of freedom of movement was extended to self-employed
workers (Kostakopoulou, 2002)5. However significant barriers to free
2 The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), created in 1951, obliged Member States to
remove restrictions on movement for workers of Member States employed in the coal and steel
industries (Geddes, 2000a: 45).
3 Articles 48-51 EEC (39-42 on renumbering) actually referred to ‘workers’ without specifying
whether these were nationals of a Member State or simply legal residents of a Member State
(see Kostakopoulou, 2002: 445).
4 Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15th October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on
movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their
families; Council Regulation EEC 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community.
5 Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement
and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
establishment and the provision of services.
36
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
movement remained in place: with regard to specific groups (e.g. students,
economically inactive or retired persons)6 and in the form of more indirect
barriers (e.g. in terms of social security, pensions, welfare benefits) (Tomei,
2001: 34; Warnes, 2002)7. Initially freedom of movement was not a priority in
the overall goal of the establishment of a single European market, nor was
migration policy in general. It was thus often left to the European Court of
Justice to interpret and develop the rights entailed by the concept of freedom
of movement and to determine whether it should extend to other groups
legally resident within the EC. Freedom of movement was also, to some
extent (insofar as the temporary posting of workers was concerned),
established in the context of the liberalisation of services as of 1st January
1970. While of relatively little importance during the 1970s, the impact of
this freedom began to unfold with the admission of Member States with
much lower wage levels (Menz, 2002: 727)8.
1.1 European Citizenship and freedom of movement
The concept of a European citizenship, first suggested in the early 1970s
in the framework of the wider debate on ‘European identity’, rekindled
interest in the rights that the concept of freedom of movement should entail.
From the start, the concept of a European citizenship was – in addition to its
symbolic function – regarded as embodying the EC’s four freedoms, in
particular, freedom of movement. But no significant changes to policies were
made.
In the 1980s, the European Community began to adopt a more proactive
approach to intra-European mobility. In 1981, the Council agreed on the
6 But see regulation EEC 1251/70 on the right of workers to remain resident in the territory of a
Member State after having been employed in that State.
7 The social security status of intra-EC migrants was addressed by CEE 1408/71 and 574/72 in
1971 and 1972, respectively (see Menz, 2002: 723).
8 The practice of the temporary posting of workers was boosted by a landmark ruling by the
European Court of Justice in 1990 (in the case Société Rush Portuguesa vs. Office National
d’Immigration, 27th March 1990; C-118/89), which explicitly permitted the posting of workers
within the framework of service provision in a case involving Portuguese workers to France.
However, it also upheld governments’ right to impose their legislation on any person
performing a paid service on their territory. Several countries (e.g. France and Austria)
successfully imposed minimum or standard wage requirements, while in the Netherlands and
Germany these were far less comprehensive. In Belgium, some 124,000 workers were posted in
1994, while the number of workers in Germany posted under service agreements rose from
20,000 in 1993 to 138,000 in 1995. The main countries sending temporary labour abroad were
Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Britain, while the main receiving countries were initially France and
Belgium, and then almost exclusively Germany (Menz, 2002).
37
T H E S I M
creation of ‘a passport Union’, which indirectly endorsed the idea of a
Community without internal borders (Guiraudon, 2000: 254). The abolition
of border controls between EC countries, first suggested at the European
summit in 19749, was formally declared a goal at the European Summit in
Fontainebleau in 1984. Towards the end of the decade, two directives were
adopted that were intended to remove some of the remaining barriers to the
full achievement of freedom of movement10 by extending rights of residence
and free movement to specific groups not covered by existing legislation
(e.g. young persons, academics and students), while a broad range of social
rights (health care, old-age pensions), the right to establishment and
recognition of diplomas were defined in the Social Charter (adopted in
December 1989) and elsewhere. Both developments also reflected the view
that the removal of barriers to migration within the European Community
was a necessary step towards making European labour markets more
flexible and integrated, and hence, to achieving the wider goal of a single
European market (Wiener, 1997).
Thus, it is no more coincidence that the rights entailed by European
Union citizenship, created by the Treaty of Maastricht (1992) and
strengthened by the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997), are primarily relevant to
economic migrants. This is a vivid expression of the EU’s concern to ensure
free movement of persons within the European Union (Prentoulis, 2001:
198). The centrality of freedom of movement to the concept of European
citizenship is further underlined by a directive on the rights of European
Union citizens and their family members, which was adopted by Council on
29th April 200411. Apart from consolidating earlier directives into a single
legislative document, the directive further simplifies the formalities still
involved in the exercise of free movement (e.g. by abolishing residence cards
for citizens of the European Union and replacing them with a simple
9 The Paris Summit of 1974 can be regarded as the ‘birth date’ of EU migration policy, leading to
the creation of the Trevi Group. The inclusion of migration policy on the Summit agenda had
three main progenitors: the 1973 oil-price shock and the concomitant halt in recruitment; the full
implementation of freedom of movement within the EU; and fears about possible negative
externalities created by the opening/abolition of internal borders which had already been
suggested in that period (Stetter, 2000: 85f).
10 Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28th June 1990 on the right of residence, and Council
Directive 90/365/EEC of 28th June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and selfemployed persons who have ceased their occupational activity.
11 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29th April 2004 on the
right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the
territory of the EU MS, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives
64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC
and 93/96/EEC.
38
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
registration certificate issued after entry on the population register at the
place of residence). In addition, the directive introduces a right to permanent
residence after five years of continuous residence12 and a right to free
movement of family members of EU nationals irrespective of their
nationality. Finally, the directive clarifies the conditions under which the
right of free movement of EU nationals can still be restricted on grounds of
public policy, public security and public health, introducing certain
safeguards for minors and long-term residents. While the conditionality of
the right of residence in the event of lack of means is upheld by the directive,
it prohibits automatic expulsions as a consequence of recourse to the social
assistance system.
The changes, which have to be transposed into EU MS’ national
legislation within a period of two years, have important implications for
data collection on intra-European migration: the removal of controls will
further reduce incentives for EU nationals to register or de-register when
they move to another Member State. It is also very likely to result in EU
nationals disappearing from aliens registers in those countries where they
are still included in such datasets (e.g. Germany)13, and thus will further
strengthen the emphasis in both migration policy and migration research on
third-country nationals.
1.2 The project of a single market, the Single European Act
(1985), Schengen Cooperation and the Europeanisation of
migration policy towards third-country nationals
In hindsight, the mid-1980s proved to be a major watershed with regard
to the development of common migration policies vis-à-vis third-country
nationals. In particular, the abolition of border controls, initially pursued by
an ad-hoc group of five Member States outside the Community framework,
provided a powerful rationale for migration policies to be pursued in close
cooperation with other Member States.
The enactment of the Single European Act in 1986 (in force since July
1987) was a major step towards achieving the goal of a single market and
towards realising its four underlying freedoms of movement (for capital,
12 Under previous EU legislation, EU nationals could be deported or expelled from another
Member State on grounds of public policy (e.g. on grounds of social policy in the event of lack
of means), public security (e.g. conviction, but also on lesser grounds, such as public order), and
public health.
13 EU nationals resident in another Member State will normally be included in population
registers (where these exist) or will be covered by censuses.
39
T H E S I M
goods, services, and persons)14. It was also a crucial step towards formalised
European political cooperation involving regular consultations on matters
such as immigration and asylum policies, as well as foreign policy and other
areas. In some ways the project of a single European market and cooperation
on immigration policies were closely linked, at least in the view of the
European Commission. The latter saw increased – if limited – cooperation
on immigration as a necessary precursor to lifting restrictions on free
movement within the European Community, particularly after the European
Council of Fontainebleau (1984) agreed – in principle –to the abolition of
internal border controls (Geddes, 2001: 24; Guiraudon, 2000: 254ff).
Member States, however, remained reluctant to pool migration policy,
while the Commission thought it wiser to leave matters of immigration
control to Member States, particularly when the Member States strongly
rejected tentative suggestions by the Commission that the development of
common migration policies was a necessary corollary to the establishment of
a single market and free movement (Hailbronner, 1995: 184f)15. The
insistence of the UK and Ireland on stopping short of full freedom of
movement of persons and maintaining border controls meant that the total
abolition of such controls (as advocated by several Member States), and the
concomitant need for closer cooperation in terms of visa policies, exchange
of information etc., had to be pursued outside the formal framework of the
EC.
Schengen Cooperation
In 1984, five Member States (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands and
Luxembourg) reached a framework agreement in Saarbrücken on the
abolition of internal border controls. The resulting Schengen Agreement was
signed in 1985 and provided for the removal of internal border controls,
while simultaneously introducing measures to strengthen external border
14 Article 13 of the Single European Act explicitly stated that the single market, to be created by
1992, would be ‘an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods,
persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty’ (see
also Huysmans, 2000: 758f; Klos, 1998: 29).
15 In 1985 the Commission issued new guidelines on migration, and later that year adopted a
decision setting up a procedure for prior consultation on new policies in this area. This decision
was contested by five Member States and annulled by the European Court of Justice in 1987
(Guiraudon, 2003: 272; Hailbronner, 1995: 185). In addition, the Commission’s legislative
proposals for the Single European Act included numerous provisions on immigration and
asylum, which were rejected by Member States (Geddes, 2000a: 70).
40
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
controls, and to fight drug-trafficking, crime and illegal migration
(Guiraudon, 2000: 255; Moraes, 2003: 117).
The programme for compensatory measures made necessary by the
abolition of border controls served as the basis for the difficult negotiations
leading up to the signing of the Schengen Implementation Convention,
concluded five years later, in 1990, and in force since March 1995. The
Convention defines rules for the uniform control of external borders, entry
requirements, internal control checks, a uniform visa format, harmonised
visa policies, cooperation between police authorities, information exchange
and other related subjects. The most important technical compensatory
measure is the Schengen Information System (SIS), which allows for the
limited exchange of information on entry, the issuing of visas, and police
cooperation (Art. 93).
An Executive Committee, taking its decisions unanimously, was set up to
monitor the implementation of the Convention. New members could accede
to the Convention by an agreement between themselves and all the old
members, subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by all old and new
members. As laid down in a joint declaration attached to the final act of the
Convention, the ‘Convention shall not be brought into force until the
preconditions for its implementation have been fulfilled in the Signatory
States and checks at external borders are effective’.
The Convention entered into force for its original Members in September
1993, and became operative in March 1995. It also became operative in
Portugal and Spain (1995), Italy (1997/8), Austria (1997/8), Greece (2000),
Denmark, Finland and Sweden (all 2001). Iceland and Norway are also
parties to the Convention. Ireland and the United Kingdom remain outside
the Schengen Agreement, but participate in certain forms of Schengen-based
liaison, including police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the
Schengen Information System (SIS).
The Schengen Agreement of 1985, the Convention of 1990, and the rules
and related agreements adopted since then together form the so-called
‘Schengen acquis’. Through the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) of the European
Union, the Schengen acquis has been incorporated into the European Union
structures. This incorporation entailed dividing the Schengen acquis
between the first pillar (in the new Title IV) and the third pillar structures of
the Treaty on European Union. Measures related to immigration and visas
were incorporated in the first pillar, while those relating to police
cooperation were included in the third pillar. The legal incorporation of the
Schengen acquis into the Union was accompanied by the integration of
institutions. The Council took over the Schengen Executive Committee and
the Council’s General Secretariat took over the Schengen Secretariat. In the
41
T H E S I M
ten new Member States, which joined the Union on 1st May 2004, the
Schengen acquis will become operational once all the preconditions for the
implementation of the Convention have been fulfilled and checks at their
external borders are effective. The incorporation of the Schengen acquis into
EU law and the creation of the new Title IV of the first pillar as part of the
creation of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ made migration a core
competence of the European Union. However, those states that opted out of
the Schengen Convention (Ireland and United Kingdom) also opted out of
Title IV, while Denmark participates in the Schengen area only by means of
an international treaty.
1.3 Intergovernmental cooperation in the European Communities
Until the establishment of the Single European Area, cooperation on
migration and asylum within the European Communities was strictly
intergovernmental, outside formal EC institutions, and largely organised by
informal working groups, comprising high-level civil servants, mainly from
within Member States’ ministries of the interior (Guiraudon, 2000: 260f). The
mandate of the working groups and their composition proved an important
factor in determining and limiting the scope of intergovernmental
cooperation and later community policy–making on issues within a narrow
security-migration nexus.
The two main forums for discussion within the EC were the TREVI
Groups and the Ad Hoc Immigration Group (AHIG) (Pätzoldt, 1995: 59ff).
The TREVI Group was formed in December 1975 by the Council of the
European Union to bring together senior Justice and Interior officials to
coordinate action against terrorism. Since 1980 its mandate included
consideration of illegal immigration and asylum flows and since 1989 TREVI
(IV) worked on potential security problems associated with the abolition of
(internal) border controls (Klos, 1998: 31). It was dissolved by a decision of
the Council of the European Union in London in November 1992
(Brochmann, 1996: 86). The Ad Hoc Immigration Group of Senior Officials
(AHIG) was established in 1986 by the Ministers Responsible for
Immigration16. This working group consisted of senior officials below
ministerial level and other high-level civil servants from the twelve Member
States. Although a representative from the Commission was included in the
AHIG from the beginning, the Commission did not possess a right of
initiative. The AHIG was staffed by the Secretariat of the Council of the
16 In 1986 the Interior and Justice Ministers of the EC Member States met for the first time as the
‘Ministers Responsible for Immigration’.
42
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
European Union and established six smaller working groups on asylum,
external frontiers, false documents, admissions, deportations and
information exchange. In the 1990s, the Commission and the UNHCR were
increasingly involved in AHIG discussions on policy proposals on asylum
(Brochmann, 1996: 87).
To coordinate the work of the various intergovernmental bodies, the
European Council, at its December 1988 Summit in Rhodes, established the
Coordinators’ Group on the Free Movement of Persons (also called the
Rhodes Group). The first assignment of the Coordinators’ Group was the
preparation of a report on measures necessary to create an area without
internal frontiers. Their report, called the Free Movement of Persons Report
(or ‘Palma Document’) outlined a dual strategy of first strengthening checks
at the Community’s external frontiers and then abolishing internal border
checks. It was adopted by the European Council at its June 1989 meeting in
Madrid.
The Dublin Convention (1990) and the London Resolutions (1992)
The work of the Ad-Hoc Immigration Group resulted in two main
international agreements relevant to the harmonisation of European asylum
laws: the ‘Dublin Convention’ determining the state responsible for
examining applications for asylum and the non-binding ‘London
Resolutions’ on the harmonisation of substantive and procedural asylum
law17. The so-called ‘Agreement on Country of First Asylum’, or Dublin
Convention, was signed on 15th June 199018. However, due to long delays in
the ratification procedures and the problems faced in implementing its
regulations, the original Convention, which entered into force only in
December 1997, never became fully operational and was superseded by a
Council Regulation adopted in February 2003, known as ‘Dublin II’ (see
below)19.
The so-called London Resolutions were passed by the Ministers
Responsible for Immigration on 1st December 1992 and endorsed by the
A third document elaborated by the AHIG, the ‘External Frontiers Convention’, has not been
adopted.
18 The full title is ‘The Convention Determining the State Responsible for Examining
Applications for Asylum Lodged in One of the Member States of the European Communities
done at Dublin on 15th June 1990’. The final Member State, Denmark, signed the agreement on
13th June 1991.
19 Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18th February 2003 establishing the criteria and
mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum
application lodged in one of the EU MS by a third-country national.
17
43
T H E S I M
European Council at its meeting in Edinburgh on 11st and 12th December
1992. They laid down important legal concepts with regard to the
examination of individual asylum claims (the ‘Resolution on Manifestly
Unfounded Applications for Asylum’ defining the concept of ‘manifestly
unfounded’; the ‘Resolution on a Harmonised Approach to Questions
Concerning Host Third Countries’ defining the principle of a ‘safe third
country’; and the ‘Conclusions on Countries in which there is Generally No
Serious Risk of Persecution’ introducing the notion of ‘safe countries of
origin’). While these resolutions did not have the same status as the Dublin
Convention and were not legally binding, it can be argued that they
nevertheless had a great impact on the (de facto) harmonisation of European
asylum laws, since Ministers agreed to incorporate them into their national
legislation and guidelines. By 1994 most EU MS had incorporated the
concepts and legal principles set forth in these resolutions into their national
asylum laws20.
Until the Maastricht Treaty, cooperation on migration policy largely
focused on issues related to states’ security interests in general, and issues
related to border controls in particular and in this they reflected the nature
and composition of the various working groups devoted to migration policy.
This changed dramatically with the Treaty of Maastricht, which created a
series of new forums with a potentially much broader focus.
2. Maastricht, the three-pillar structure of the European
Union and cooperation on migration within the EU
The Treaty of Maastricht made immigration an issue of common interest
for the EU. As a consequence, the three intergovernmental groups
mentioned above were absorbed into the Third Pillar of the EU after the
entry into force of the Treaty in November 199321. The ‘Coordinators’ Group
on the Free Movement of Persons’ was replaced by the ‘Coordinating
20Appendix I Nr. 12 and Appendix II Nr. 4 of the London Resolutions state that countries
should aim to incorporate the recommendations into their national asylum law until the entry
into force of the Dublin Convention (for the concept of a ‘host third country’) or until 1 January
1995 by the latest (for the principle of ‘manifestly unfounded applications for asylum’).
21 The Treaty on European Union (TEU, also called the ‘Maastricht Treaty’) established the
‘three pillar’ structure of the EU. The first comprises the European Communities, now called the
‘European Community’ (EC), placing a number of issues under the jurisdiction of supranational EU bodies. The second pillar comprises ‘Foreign and Security Policy’, while the third
pillar is ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ (Title VI of the TEU). In both the second and third pillar,
cooperation is largely intergovernmental.
44
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
Committee’ (‘K4-Committee’)22 of senior officials of Third Pillar activities.
Like the earlier Coordinators’ Group, the K4-Committee was designed to
coordinate the numerous bodies within the EU concerned with immigration,
asylum and other matters; unlike the Coordinators’ Group, it also had
‘political’ authority over these matters23. The TREVI Groups and the Ad-Hoc
Immigration Group were incorporated into ‘Steering Group I’ (Immigration
and Asylum) and ‘Steering Group II’ (Police and Customs Cooperation) of
the Third Pillar. Steering Group I had several subgroups (Asylum; Visa;
Migration; External Borders; False Documents; the Centre for Information,
Discussion and Exchange on Asylum (CIREA); and the Centre for
Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of Borders and
Immigration (CIREFI)).
The ‘diluted intergovernmentalism’ (Kostakopoulou, 2000:498) created
by Maastricht, however, soon proved to be deficient in several respects,
lacking coherence, consistency, transparency and efficiency. In addition, the
lack of clear objectives, the cumbersome decision-making process, the
absence of binding legal instruments and the lack of enforcement
mechanisms created the conditions for the communitarisation of migration
policy by the IGC 1996 and the resulting Amsterdam Treaty (Morris, 1997:
245).
In the early stages of European cooperation on asylum and migration, the
influence of the European Parliament and the European Commission on
policy development was very limited. Nevertheless, the European
Commission increasingly took an active interest in these matters, and in
October 1991 it submitted two Communications, one on asylum and another
on immigration24. With little to show for its initiatives, the Commission got
fresh impetus from the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and its newly
22 This was established by Article K.4 under Title VI (Provisions on Cooperation in the Fields of
Justice and Home Affairs) of the TEU.
23 Priority areas for the K4-Committee included (1) immigration and asylum, (2) security and
law enforcement, and (3) judicial cooperation. The K4-Committee reported directly to the
Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), which in turn reported directly to the
Justice and Home Affairs Council (JHA) (see Papademetriou, 1996: 75ff for further details).
24 The two Communications promoted a ‘global approach’ to immigration that emphasised
‘complementary, comprehensive and realistic responses’, including measures to relieve
migration pressures, control migration flows and strengthen integration policies for legal
immigrants. It also called for harmonisation measures to combat illegal immigration and, in its
Communication on Asylum, to combat ‘asylum abuse’ (Commission of the European
Communities, Communication of the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on the Right of Asylum, SEC (91) 1857 of 11th October 1991 (final) and Communication of the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Immigration, SEC (91) 1855 of 23rd
October 1991 (final). See also Drüke, 1992: 3ff and Hailbronner, 1995: 183ff).
45
T H E S I M
acquired right of initiative on third-pillar issues, and issued a follow-up
Communication in 1994. In this the Commission proposed a comprehensive
approach to immigration, based on three elements: (1) strengthening
integration policies to the benefit of long-time immigrants; (2) better control
of migration flows, including the adoption of measures to combat illegal
immigration, and (3) adopting a long-term approach to reducing migration
pressures (Hailbronner, 1995: 203)25. The Communication also reiterated the
need for accurate information and suggested the establishment of a
European Migration Observatory. The 1991 Communication on Immigration
had already pointed out the need to monitor migratory movements and had
led to the creation of two – then largely informal –forums for the exchange of
information, including statistical data, CIREA and CIREFI.
With the completion of the European Economic Area (EEA) on 1st
January 1994, the four freedoms were extended to nationals of all the
eighteen Member States of the EEA (EU and EFTA states, except
Switzerland)26. On 1st January 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden became
full members of the EU27.
Following the Maastricht Treaty, cooperation within the EU in the fields
of justice and home affairs intensified. Parallel to the implementation of
Schengen cooperation, steady progress was made in cooperation on asylum
and migration matters. Eventually, this development led to the adoption of
the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and its goal of establishing an area of
freedom, security and justice.
3. The Treaty of Amsterdam and the Communitarisation of
Migration and Asylum Policies
The Treaty of Amsterdam divided between the first and the third pillars the
policy field which had previously been under the third pillar. This meant
that a large portion of justice and home affairs subjects (external borders,
immigration and asylum, judicial cooperation in civil matters) were
removed from the sphere of intergovernmental cooperation and included
The Communication outlined measures addressing the ‘root causes’ of migration, such as
‘human rights policies; humanitarian assistance; security policy; demographic policies and
trade, development and cooperation policies’ (Commission of the European Communities,
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
immigration and asylum policies’, COM (94) 23 final, Brussels, 23rd February 1994).
26 In a referendum in December 1992 Switzerland, which is part of EFTA, decided against
accession to the EEA.
27 In a referendum in Norway on 28th November 1994, Norwegian membership of the EU was
rejected by 52.4% of the voters. However, Norway remains part of the EEA.
25
46
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
under matters dealt with by the Community Method (i.e. they were
‘communitarised’). Under the first pillar, a new Title IV was added to the
Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC, ‘Visas, asylum,
immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons‘), while
the former Title VI of the TEU (the third pillar) was renamed ‘Police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ and restricted to fewer fields (e.g.
closer cooperation between police services, customs and judicial authorities).
The third pillar provisions included a ‘bridge’ allowing Member States to
transfer areas of competence from Title VI to Title IV. The Amsterdam
Treaty also incorporated the Schengen acquis into the EU framework.
While the communitarisation of migration policy was largely a response
to the evident deficiencies of intergovernmental cooperation on migration
under the Maastricht framework, it was also meant to strengthen the
existing framework (particularly the Schengen acquis) in view of the eastern
enlargement of the Union (Lavenex, 2001: 33).
3.1 New Institutional Structures within the European Union
The switch from intergovernmental cooperation to a Community
working method in many areas of justice and home affairs under the
Amsterdam Treaty brought broad changes in the institutional structure
under which migration and asylum matters are now dealt with. The highest
body (apart from the European Council) dealing with these matters is now
the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which adopts regulations, directives,
common positions, recommendations, resolutions and (framework)
decisions and draws up conventions.
The proceedings of the Council are prepared by the Committee of
Permanent Representatives (COREPER), composed of the Ambassadors of
the Member States to the EU. Other preparatory bodies are the Strategic
Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) and the Working
Parties. SCIFA is composed of senior officials and is positioned halfway
between the Working Parties and COREPER. The task of SCIFA is to issue
strategic guidelines in matters relating to immigration, borders and asylum,
to act in matters falling under Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the TEC28 and to give
substantive input to COREPER’s discussions. The Working Parties,
composed of senior officials, agree on matters within their domain of
28 These are: measures to be adopted with regard to the crossing of borders; measures to be
adopted with regard to asylum, immigration policy and residence status of third-country
nationals; and measures to be taken in an emergency situation characterised by sudden inflows.
47
T H E S I M
competence and submit their views to SCIFA29. The Article 36 Committee
(named after Article 36 of the TEU which established it) is a coordinating
body composed of senior officials of the Member States: it coordinates
activities in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
(e.g. the SIS) and can issue opinions to the Council, either at the latter’s
request or on its own initiative.
The High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration (HLWG),
created in 1998 on the initiative of the Netherlands, is a special body within
the framework of EU justice and home affairs cooperation, attended by highlevel officials representing each Member of the Council and the
Commission. Its task is to develop a strategic approach and a coherent and
integrated policy for the European Union towards the most important
countries and regions of origin and transit of asylum-seekers and migrants.
In doing so, it analyses and monitors migratory trends, proposes measures
and takes initiatives such as the implementation of country-specific action
plans30. Furthermore, the group is charged with identifying possibilities for
closer cooperation with intergovernmental, governmental and nongovernmental organisations in the regions of origin concerned. The HLWG
has thus become the central body within the EU charged with enhancing
cooperation with source and transit countries in the area of migration and
asylum.
A General Secretariat assists the Council. The main responsibility of the
Secretariat is to prepare the meetings of the European Council, and of the
Council of the European Union and its preparatory bodies, namely
COREPER and the Working Parties. It advises the Presidency and the
Secretary-General on their coordination. This includes working out the
content and wording of compromises. Directorate-General H of the
Secretariat Council is responsible for justice and home affairs. It consists of
two sections: Section I: Asylum and immigration (including CIREA, CIREFI
and EURODAC) and Section II: Police and customs cooperation.
In the European Commission, the Directorate-General for Freedom,
Security and Justice (DG JLS)31 exercises the right of legislative initiative32,
29 Under SCIFA there are seven working parties, namely the Working Party on Migration, the
Working Party on Expulsion, the Working Party on Visas, the Working Party on Asylum, the
Working Party on Frontiers, the Working Party on CIREA, and the Working Party on CIREFI.
30 The six action plans drafted so far (on Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq, Morocco, Somalia and Sri
Lanka) focused on EU assistance in the reception of displaced persons in the home region
concerned, readmission agreements and on assessments of whether ‘safe return’ to the country
of origin is possible or whether ‘internal settlement alternatives exist’.
31 In August 2004, the name of the DG was changed from ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ to
‘Freedom, Justice and Security’.
48
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
deals with the (re-)writing of legislation in areas which moved from the
intergovernmental third pillar to Community procedures under the first
pillar, the control of the application of Community legislation, the day-today management of justice and internal security issues in contact with the
EU MS, and the task of ensuring that candidates for accessions comply with
the JAI standards of the EU. DG JLS began life as the Directorate-General for
Justice and Home Affairs in October 1999 and thus is one of the youngest
(and with some 320 officials also one of the smallest) Directorates-General. It
built on a task force on justice and home affairs issues which had been
established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The major areas of work of DG
JLS are: immigration, asylum and borders (Directorate B); civil justice, rights
and citizenship (Directorate C); and internal security and criminal justice
(Directorate D). A unit for external relations and questions related to
enlargements, evaluation and coordination is located in its Directorate A.
One of the most important future mandates of the DG will be the further
development of the Union’s fundamental rights policy.
Apart from exercising its right of initiative, the Commission is also fully
involved in the work of the Council in the various bodies set up to deal with
asylum matters, immigration and checks at external borders. It also takes
part in the work of the group set up to facilitate the exchange of information
in the fields of migration (CIREFI) and coordinates Eurasil, a forum for the
exchange of information on asylum, which replaced CIREA (the equivalent
of CIREFI) in 2002.
3.2 The mandate of the European Union with regard to asylum,
immigration and integration
According to the Amsterdam Treaty, the Community is now responsible
for laying down uniform procedures for: carrying out checks on persons at
the external borders; uniform rules on visas for stays of up to three months,
including a list of third countries whose nationals must be in possession of a
visa when crossing the external borders33; the procedures and conditions for
issuing visas by EU MS; and a uniform format for visas. In addition, the
Council was asked to adopt measures with respect to refugees, including the
This right was shared with the EU MS until 1st May 2004 and is now held solely by the
Commission with regard to matters falling under Title IV TEC. For issues falling under Title VI
TEU Member States retain the possibility of initiating legislation.
33 See Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15th March 2001 listing the third countries whose
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose
nationals are exempt from that requirement.
32
49
T H E S I M
establishment of criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member
State is responsible for considering an application for asylum submitted by a
national of a third country in one of the EU MS; minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers; minimum standards for the qualification of
third-country nationals as refugees and the criteria for awarding refugee and
subsidiary protection status; minimum standards on procedures in EU MS
for granting or withdrawing refugee status; and minimum standards for
giving temporary protection to displaced third-country nationals34. The
Amsterdam Treaty also specified a deadline of five years after its entry into
force (i.e. 1st May 2004), for the Council to adopt these measures. Finally, the
Council was asked to propose measures on the conditions of entry and
residence of third-country nationals and to define a set of basic rights for
those of them who are long-term residents of a Member State. This task was
not subject to the deadline specified by the Treaty for asylum and border
issues.
However, the role of EU institutions in regard to Title IV was limited in
two important ways: first, the Council had to reach decisions unanimously;
second, the application of preliminary rulings by the European Court of
Justice was significantly limited35. In principle, the EU’s competence was
restricted to twelve EU MS. With the exception of a common visa policy,
Denmark does not participate in the common migration policy, although it
can adopt relevant EU legislation building on the Schengen acquis within six
months of the latter’s adoption at EU level, thus creating mutual obligations
under international law36. Similarly, the Republic of Ireland and the United
For a list of specific measures adopted, see below.
The Amsterdam Treaty entered into force on 1st May 1999. Thus the transitional period ended
on 30th April2004. During this period, the Council in general acted unanimously on a proposal
from the Commission or on the initiative of a Member State, after consulting the European
Parliament. As of 1st May 2004, the Council acts on proposals from the Commission, which now
has the sole right of initiative. However, the Commission must examine any request by a
Member State that it submit a proposal to the Council. In addition, and according to the
deadline set by article 67 EC, the Council was asked to adopt new procedural rules by 1st May
2004. New procedural rules are established by the draft constitution, which, introduces
qualified majority voting in the Council, involves the European Parliament (co-decision-making
procedure), and lifts the restrictions on preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice
(see Brinkmann, 2004: 186; Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, III-167 and III-168).
Some items of Title IV have automatically become subject to qualified majority voting, while the
procedure has been extended to some other areas by a recent Council Decision (2004/927/EC).
A further extension of qualified majority voting is stipulated by the same Council Decision,
which, however, also postpones the shift to the co-decision procedure and qualified majority
voting for the entire area of Title IV until after the Treaty establishing a constitution has entered
into force.
36 See Protocol on the position of Denmark, OJ C340, 10th November 1997.
34
35
50
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
Kingdom are not bound by measures under Title IV. However, these two
states are free to participate in the adoption and implementation of measures
under Title IV if they wish to do so, on a case-by-case basis37. In addition,
Ireland and the UK reserve the right to control any persons, including
citizens of the European Union, seeking entry to the territory of either state,
and the concomitant right to grant or refuse entry38. Partly because these
three countries do not participate in a common EU asylum and migration
policy, except on a case-by-case basis, and − in the case of Denmark − are
limited to legislation building on the Schengen acquis, intergovernmental
modes of cooperation have remained important (as expressed, for example,
by the creation of the cross-pillar High Level Working Group following an
initiative by the Netherlands in December 1998 and several other initiatives
proposed by individual EU MS and groups of EU MS at the Councils of
Seville (2002) and Thessaloniki (2003) (Guiraudon, 2003: 272)).
The Treaty of Amsterdam also significantly broadened the scope of the
EU’s competence with respect to migration policy in the widest sense,
outside the justice and affairs provisions of Title IV (i.e. with regard to
migrant integration and anti-discrimination, see for example Article 13 and
Article 137 of the Treaty). Anti-discrimination had long been on the
European agenda, in the sense that the liberalising philosophy underlying
the single market project tended to see every digression from market
mechanisms as problematic and dysfunctional. This provided a powerful
rationale for anti-discrimination policies, mainly with respect to
disadvantages faced by EU citizens living and working in another Member
State, but also, since the 1970s, with respect to gender.
By the time of the Amsterdam Treaty, the anti-discrimination agenda had
gained a momentum of its own. It had been broadened to include thirdcountry nationals and immigrant minorities and partly fused with the
increasing concern to foster social cohesion and fight social exclusion. Except
in the original core area of migration policy – border control and cooperation
with respect to asylum issues – the impetus for the expansion of the EU
migration policy agenda came from the Commission itself and various
migrant interest groups sponsored by the Commission, such as the Starting
Line Group (SLG) (led by the Brussels-based Migration Policy Group and
supported by the British Commission for Racial Equality and the Dutch
National Office against Racism) (Geddes, 2000b)).
See Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, OJ C340, 10th November
1997.
38 Protocol on the application of certain aspects of Article 7a of the Treaty establishing the
European Community to the United Kingdom and to Ireland, OJ C340, 10th November 1997.
37
51
T H E S I M
Even before the 1996 Inter Governmental Conference (IGC), the Council
had adopted measures to combat racism and discrimination on the basis of
race and ethnicity. Thus a consultative commission on racism and
xenophobia was created at the Council of Corfu in 1994, followed by the
creation of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) in 1997, based in Vienna (Geddes, 2000a: 115)39. The EUMC
interpreted its mandate as being to monitor developments in EU MS with
regard to racism and xenophobia. It established an extensive data-collection
system, including commissioned reports on the social, economic and legal
status of migrant minorities and issues of integration and exclusion more
generally40. The EU’s movement into areas beyond classic justice and home
affairs concerns also underlay the Commission’s long-standing quest41 to
include a rights-based approach alongside the more security-driven policy
initiatives in the core areas of EU migration policies (such as asylum and
border controls).
In this way, the EU has moved beyond a narrow migration-management
agenda, focusing on the management of migration flows to take a much
broader approach to migration issues that includes a strong emphasis on the
integration of migrants and on non-discrimination. This is also reflected in
the Constitutional Treaty, Article 267 (4) of which provides a legal basis for
Community policies on integration. As a corollary, there is a strong need to
improve and expand the collection of statistical and other data on
discrimination against and integration of migrants, most importantly by
improving and expanding statistical data on their labour market
performance.
For example, while a broad range of general employment indicators are
regularly collected at a national level, current data rarely enable the user to
identify migrants or to focus on specific groups of migrants. Many other
indicators are needed to identify patterns of integration and discrimination,
such as income level, educational attainment, home ownership vs. renting
39 Council Regulation (EC) No 1035/97 of 2nd June 1997 establishing a European Monitoring
Centre on racism and xenophobia.
40 The EUMC will be transformed into a Human Rights Agency following a decision at the
European Council in Brussels on 13th December 2003.
41 For example, the 1994 Communication on immigration and asylum (COM (94) 23 final) stated
that ‘[t]he Commission feels that steps should be taken to align the rights of [legal] immigrants
more closely to those of nationals of the EU MS and that measures are needed in the fields of
employment, education and information and to combat racial discrimination and all forms of
racism and xenophobia.’ Similarly, the 1995 Commission White Paper on Social Policy made a
case for extending the right to work and live in another Member State to third-country nationals
(Morris, 1997: 244).
52
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
etc. These variables are rarely collected in a way that allows the
identification of migrants or those from a migrant background. In general, in
most European countries, migrants are distinguished from non-migrants by
the criterion of citizenship. In countries where citizenship can be obtained
after a relatively short waiting period this group effectively disappears from
the statistics. A further complication for those wishing to study integration is
that minorities of migrant background are no longer captured by regular
employment statistics (Jandl, Kraler and Stepien, 2003: 83ff and below)42.
The expansion of the scope of EU policies on migration (in the widest
sense) and the shift away from admission and border control policies both
make the focus on third-country nationals less plausible. Not only do many
of the ‘migrants’ who are subject to racism, social exclusion and
discrimination hold the citizenship of their country of residence (they may
even be second- or third-generation), but internal migrants (especially those
from new EU MS) may encounter very similar problems when moving
within the EU.
The Tampere Summit (1999) and its aftermath
Following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, a special
meeting of the European Council took place in Tampere, Finland in October
1999. This was devoted exclusively to justice and home affairs matters and
came to be seen as a landmark in the development of a common EU
migration policy. The summit conclusions reiterated the need to develop a
common EU policy on asylum and migration, which should, inter alia,
include the following elements: a comprehensive approach to migration,
including partnerships with countries of origin; a common European asylum
system; fair treatment of third-country nationals, including rules on nondiscrimination; the management of migration flows at all their stages,
including re-admission agreements; the development, in close cooperation
with countries of origin and transit, of information campaigns on legal
immigration, and on the prevention of all forms of trafficking in human
beings; a common policy on visas and false documents, including closer
cooperation between EU consulates in third countries and, where necessary,
the establishment of common EU visa-issuing offices; the forceful combating
of all forms of trafficking in human beings and economic exploitation of
42 Labour force surveys usually do include a question on country of birth but a variety of factors
(e.g. a relatively small sub-sample of migrants and inadequate sampling frames when the
characteristics and size of the population in question is rapidly changing) often make it difficult
to use the data for an assessment of the labour market performance of migrants.
53
T H E S I M
migrants and the adoption of legislation foreseeing severe sanctions against
these crimes.
The Tampere conclusions also reiterated the need for a common
approach to the integration of long-term immigrants into European societies,
going beyond the immediate concerns of non-discrimination, most
importantly by approximating the rights of third-country nationals to those
of the nationals of EU MS43. In this context, the conclusions also emphasised
the importance of citizenship as an important step towards the integration of
third-country nationals and the development, on the part of migrants, of a
sense of belonging in the receiving society. Thus, even though citizenship
policy remains the exclusive prerogative of EU MS, both the Council (and
thus EU MS) and the Commission are aware of the potential positive impact
of citizenship on migrant integration44. A Commission Communication
adopted in June 2003 even went a step further, making several concrete
suggestions as to how EU MS’ citizenship regulations could be designed to
achieve a standard that is both fair and transparent45. The policy shift
towards a more pro-active integration policy and an emphasis on the rights
of third-country nationals (initiated in Amsterdam and endorsed at the
Tampere Summit) was also linked to a more general shift in policy that
stressed the positive balance of migration and the need to manage rather
than to restrict migration. Underlying this change of paradigm in the
approach to migration was the increasing realisation that European societies
needed immigrants for demographic and economic reasons, and particularly
highly skilled migrants to fill certain gaps in highly specialised sectors of the
labour market (Düvell and Jordan, 2002: 503f)46.
The momentum created by the Tampere Summit and by the biannual
review of progress in respect of the agenda set by the Amsterdam Treaty
Tampere European Council, 15th and 16th October 1999, Presidency Conclusions, SN200/99,
Paragraph 4: “A person who has resided in a Member State for a period of time to be
determined and who holds a long-term resident permit, should be granted in that Member State
a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens”.
44 “The European Council endorses the objective that long-term legally resident third-country
nationals be offered the opportunity to obtain the nationality of the Member State in which they
are resident”. Tampere European Council, 15th and 16th October 1999, Presidency Conclusions,
SN 200/99, Paragraph 21.
45 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Council and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration
and employment, COM (2003) 336 final, Brussels, 3rd June 2003.
46 An early attempt to adopt a common admission policy with regard to migrants intending to
work in a Member State – a proposal for a directive was submitted by the Commission in July
2001 – did not prove successful. With the adoption of the Green Paper on economic migration,
the debate on a common framework for the management of economic migration has recently
been relaunched (see below).
43
54
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
and the Tampere Summit (‘Scoreboard’)47 has resulted in numerous
proposals for community legal instruments dealing with migration, asylum,
integration and anti-discrimination. Among the first measures to be adopted
in the aftermath of Tampere was the Race Equality Directive (2000/43/EC),
adopted in June 2000, just seven months after the submission of the proposal
by the Commission. While the speed of the decision was largely due to a
perceived need for action against racism, xenophobia and discrimination in
the wake of certain political developments across Europe, its early adoption
was also a powerful reminder that EU migration policy was no longer solely
concerned with migration as a security issue or confined to justice and home
affairs issues in general. A second directive on equality in employment48 was
adopted in November 2000, alongside a Community Action Programme to
combat discrimination49. A Communication from the Commission on
community immigration policy, adopted in November 2000, also signalled a
shift towards a rights-based approach, introducing the concept of ‘civic
citizenship’ to denote the evolving status of third-country nationals
(Bauböck, 2004)50.
The European Council of Nice (2000), which prepared the revisions to the
TEU incorporated into the Treaty of Nice (2001), focused on the institutional
preparations necessary for the forthcoming EU enlargement (e.g. voting
weights in the Council) but failed to establish that the areas of immigration
and asylum should become matters for straightforward majority voting in
the Council. The following European Council of Laeken in December 2001
noted that progress towards a common asylum and immigration policy had
been slower and less substantial than expected and urged a new approach,
including the integration of policy on migratory flows into EU foreign policy
47 The first biannual Scoreboard was published in November 2000, following a Commission
decision setting up a review mechanism in March 2000. See Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Scoreboard to review progress
in creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union, COM (2000) 167 (21st
March 2000) and the Communication to the Council and Parliament on the biannual update of
the Scoreboard to review progress in creating an area of freedom, security and justice in the
European Union, COM (2000) 782.
48 Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 establishing a general framework for
equal treatment in employment and occupation.
49 Council Decision 2000/750/EC establishing a Community Action Programme to combat
discrimination. The Action Programme supports activities combating discrimination on
grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation. It was
launched in 2001 and runs until 2006. Its priorities are analysis and evaluation, developing the
capacity to combat and prevent discrimination and raising awareness.
50 See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a
Community immigration policy, COM (2000) 757 final, Brussels, 22nd November 2000,
Paragraph 3.5.
55
T H E S I M
and the speedy implementation of the Eurodac system51 and the Dublin
Convention52. It asked the Council and the Commission to work out
arrangements for cooperation between the services responsible for external
border control; to examine the conditions in which a mechanism or common
services to control external borders could be created; and to take steps to set
up a common visa identification system.
Efforts to combat illegal immigration and the integration of migration
policy into the common foreign policy of the Union were high on the agenda
at the European Council in Seville in June 200253. The Council stressed
cooperation with countries of origin and transit, including return and
readmission agreements, although it stopped short of proposing sanctions
against uncooperative third countries (as had previously been suggested by
some EU MS). It did, however, urge that any future cooperation, association
or equivalent agreement with the European Union should include a clause
on joint management of migration flows and on compulsory readmission in
the event of illegal immigration. Moreover, it called for an assessment of
relationships with third countries which did not cooperate in combating
illegal immigration, and noted that insufficient cooperation by a country
could hamper the establishment of closer relations between that country and
the Union.
Finally, the European Council of Seville welcomed the Commission’s
comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration54 and the plan for the
management of external borders, and set new deadlines for the adoption of
relevant legislation. In response to the Seville Conclusions, the Commission
issued a series of communications on the main issues– on the integration of
migration into the Union’s agreements with third countries55, on a common
51 Council Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000 of 11th December 2000 concerning the establishment of
‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of fingerprints for the effective application of the Dublin
Convention. This was followed by Council Regulation (EC) No 407/2002 of 28th February 2002
laying down certain rules to implement Regulation (EC) No 2725/2000. Eurodac finally came
into operation on 15 January 2003.
52 Presidency Conclusions on Justice and Home Affairs, European Council of Laeken, 17th
December 2001.
53 Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council 21 and 22nd June 2002, SN 200/1/02
REV 1.
54 See the Action Plan on Illegal Migration contained in the Communication from the
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a common policy on illegal
immigration, COM (2001) 0676 final.
55 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
integration and migration issues in the European Union’s relations with third countries. Part I:
Migration and Development; Part II: Report on the effectiveness of financial resources available
at Community level for repatriation of immigrants and rejected asylum seekers, for
56
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
return policy (based partly on an earlier Green Paper)56, and on illegal
migration, trafficking and the smuggling of migrants57. In addition, a fourth
communication, published in early June 2003, reiterated the importance of
comprehensive policies on the integration of migrants but also touched on
wider strategic migration management issues (e.g. whether immigration
could help solve the problem posed by aging societies in Europe), while
several suggestions were made as to how to enhance knowledge about
migration in the Union58.
The European Council of Thessaloniki, held in June 2003, again ascribed
‘top political priority to migration’59. It again called for the prompt
conclusion of readmission agreements with key countries of origin, as well
as the promotion of further cooperation with them. The Summit set forth a
list of practical steps to be taken to achieve greater coherence on migration
and asylum issues in a number of areas such as: the Visa Information
System; biometric identifiers in documents; the management of external
borders; the network of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) in third
countries; the return of illegal migrants; the integration of third-country
nationals; the production of an annual report on migration and integration
in Europe; and an Action Plan for the improvement of migration statistics at
the European level60.
management of external borders and for asylum and migration projects in third countries, COM
(2002) 703(01).
56 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a
Community return policy on illegal residents, COM (2002) 564(01); Green Paper on a
Community return policy on illegal residents, COM (2002) 175 final. A return Action
Programme was adopted in November 2002 (Council Document 14673/02).
57 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council in view of
the European Council of Thessaloniki on the development of a common policy on illegal
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of
illegal residents, COM (2003) 323(01).
58 Communication from the Commission to the Council, European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Council and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration
and employment, COM (2003) 336 final, Brussels, 3rd June 2003.
59 Presidency Conclusions – Thessaloniki, 19 and 20th June 2003, 11638/03 3, available at:
http://ue.eu.int/ en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm
60The
first report was published in early 2004 and is accessible online at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/jutice_home/doc_centre/asylum/statistical/doc_annual_report_
2001_en.htm.
57
T H E S I M
Evaluating the progress made towards the creation of an area of
freedom, justice and security
As already mentioned, the Treaty of Amsterdam laid down that, within
five years from its entry into force, the Council was to adopt measures in a
number of areas relating to asylum and immigration61. The Conclusions of
the Tampere, Laeken, Seville and Thessaloniki Councils have given this task
list still greater urgency. Having published a detailed scoreboard twice a
year since November 2000 to review the progress made on the creation of an
area of freedom, justice and security, the Commission published its final
review of progress with the Tampere Agenda on 2nd June 200462.
By the end of 2003, a large proportion of the Community measures called
for in the Amsterdam Treaty had already been adopted (see references in the
footnotes). These included:
ƒ the criteria and mechanisms for determining which Member State is
responsible for considering an application for asylum63;
ƒ minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the EU
MS64;
ƒ minimum standards for nationals of non-member countries to
qualify as refugees, and the criteria for awarding refugee and
subsidiary protection status65;
ƒ minimum standards on procedures in EU MS for granting or
withdrawing refugee status66;
For a full list, see http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/a11000.htm (21st May 2004).
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  area of
freedom, security and justice: assessment of the Tampere Programme and future orientations
{SEC (2004) 680 and SEC (2004) 693}, COM (2004) 4002 final of 2nd June 2004.
63 Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18th February 2003 establishing the criteria and
mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum
application lodged in one of the EU MS by a third-country national. Council Regulation (EC)
No 1560/2003 of 2nd September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EC) No 343/2003. These regulations (‘Dublin II’) superseded the original Dublin
Convention of 1990 and came into effect in October 2003.
64 Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the
reception of asylum seekers.
65 See the proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and
status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise
need international protection. The directive was adopted at the Council Meeting of 29th April
2004 (see press release on http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/intro/wai/news_0
404_en.htm)
66 See Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedures in EU MS for
granting and withdrawing refugee status, (COM (2000) 578 final − 2000/0238(CNS)). On 29th
April 2004, the Council agreed a general approach to the proposal for a directive on minimum
61
62
58
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
ƒ minimum standards for giving temporary protection67;
ƒ promoting a balance of efforts between EU MS in receiving and
bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced
persons68;
ƒ conditions of entry and residence, and standards on procedures for
the issue by EU MS of long-term visas and residence permits,
including those for the purpose of family reunion69;
ƒ illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of
illegal residents70;
ƒ provisions defining the rights and conditions under which nationals
of non-member countries who are legally resident in a Member State
may reside in another Member State71.
In addition to the measures that were subject to the deadline of 1st May
2004 (as specified by the Amsterdam Treaty and subsequent amendments)
the Union has also made considerable progress in areas for which it received
a mandate in the Amsterdam Treaty, namely in defining a set of minimum
rights for third-country nationals who are long-term residents in an EU MS,
and in adopting measures to foster the integration of immigrants and
combat discrimination. Legislation has been adopted or is in the process of
being adopted in the following areas:
ƒ family reunion for third-country nationals who are legally
established in a Member State72;
ƒ the rights and status of third-country nationals who are long-term
residents of a Member State73;
standards on procedures in EU MS for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Before the
directive is finally adopted, however, the European Parliament will be consulted.
67 Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20th July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary
protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a
balance of efforts between EU MS in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences
thereof.
68 2000/596/EC: Council Decision of 28th September 2000 establishing a European Refugee
Fund.
69 Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13th June 2002 laying down a uniform format for
residence permits for third-country nationals. Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22nd September
2003 on the right to family reunification. Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25th November 2003
concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
70 Council Framework Decision of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings.
2002/946/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 28th November 2002 on the strengthening of the
penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence.
71 Council Regulation (EC) No 1091/2001 of 28th May 2001 on freedom of movement with a
long-stay visa.
72 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22nd September 2003 on the right to family reunification.
59
T H E S I M
ƒ anti-discrimination74;
ƒ measures on integration75.
In the light of continuing EU enlargement, and the need to make the
Union work with 25 or more EU MS, simplification and restructuring of the
Union’s structure was considered necessary. The Intergovernmental
Conference in Nice in 2000 had dealt with these issues, but could not answer
all the questions posed. Thus, at the European Council in Laeken in 2001,
European leaders agreed to set up a Convention with a view to preparing
the Union for the future76. The Convention presented its proposal to the
European Council of Thessaloniki in June 2003: a Draft Treaty establishing a
Constitution for Europe. The Constitution, which was adopted by the
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25th November 2003 concerning the status of third-country
nationals who are long-term residents.
74 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29th June 2000 implementing the principle of equal
treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin; and Council Directive
2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in
employment and occupation.
75 The Commission sees the directive on the rights of third-country nationals (residence rights)
and the planned directive on employment of third-country nationals (as well as the legislation
on anti-discrimination) as part of its wider activities in the area of integration. In a
Communication in 2000, the Commission introduced the idea of ‘civic citizenship’ as a core
concept for the further elaboration of an EU integration and migration policy (Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community
Immigration Policy, COM (2000) 757 final, Brussels, 22nd November 2000, Paragraph 3.5). The
communication and follow-up policy documents make it clear that the Commission sees the
ultimate goal of EU policy towards third-country nationals as approximating their status to that
EU citizens currently enjoy when living in another Member State. In 2003, the Commission
published a communication on integration and employment, on the basis of which it also
established a budget line for integration activities (INTI) (see Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment,
Brussels, 3rd June 2003, COM (2003) 336 final). After enlargement, the EU has reinforced its
commitment to common principles of integration policy, and has established an Integration
Network, mirroring the Migration Network established earlier. It plans to set up a European
Integration Fund, to support EU MS in designing and implementing both admission and
integration policies (see European Commission, Directorate General Justice, Freedom and
Security, Discussion paper on the legal basis for the Integration Fund under the 2007−2013
Financial Perspectives. Immigration and Asylum Committee − National Contact Points on
Integration. Extraordinary Meeting, January 2005).
76 The aim of the Convention, according to the Laeken Declaration, was to undertake a thorough
review of the Treaties, make suggestions as to how the Union could become more democratic,
transparent and efficient, and eventually prepare the way for a Constitution for Europe. The
major questions to be dealt with were: how to organise the division of responsibilities between
the Union and the EU MS; how to clarify the tasks of the different European institutions; how to
ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the Union’s external activities; and how to strengthen
the Union’s legitimacy.
73
60
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
Council in December 2004, proposes a restructuring of the legal system of
the Union, some simplification of its organisation and the establishment of
new features such as a European Foreign Minister. Even if the proposed
legal changes in the areas of border control, immigration and asylum are not
substantial, the Constitution’s proposals could still be seen as a further step
towards communitarisation in the area of justice and home affairs. The
Council may also adopt the procedural changes envisioned outside the
framework of the Constitution, as provided for by Article 67 (2) (EC).
Certain areas (e.g. certain aspects of common visa policies) are already
subject to qualified majority voting or have become subject to majority
voting with the end of the transition period. In addition, Council Decision
2004/924/EC of 22nd December 2004 makes additional, admittedly less
controversial, areas subject to qualified majority voting, while leaving the
eventual change of decision-making procedures to later Council Decisions
and the entry into force of the Constitution. According to the Hague
programme and the Constitution, the intention is that the entire Title IV will
eventually be subject to qualified majority voting (Kostakopoulou, 2000:
501).
The Hague Programme and the new agenda for EU migration policy
When the five-year transitional period for the implementation of the
Tampere work programme on migration and asylum came to an end in
2004, a discussion on the adoption of a new multi-annual programme took
place between the Commission, the Council and the EU MS. Following
intensive consultations, the new five-year work programme, called the
‘Hague Programme’77, was adopted at the Brussels European Council on 4
and 5 November 2004. This deals with all aspects of policy relating to
freedom, security and justice, notably fundamental rights and citizenship,
asylum and migration, border management and integration. The new
programme, which is in itself not legally binding, reflects the ambitions of
the (yet to be ratified) Constitution for Europe and contains a political
commitment to abolish the requirement for unanimous voting in the Council
on all EU immigration and asylum law ‘except for legal immigration’ by 1st
April 200578. To implement the Hague Programme, the Council has asked
77 The European Council, The Hague Programme – Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice
in the European Union, Brussels, 13th December 2004, Document No. 16054/04, JAI 559.
78 This change in the decision-making procedure would require the adoption of a Council
decision by unanimous vote following consultation with the European Parliament. See
61
T H E S I M
the Commission to present an Action Plan in 2005, detailing a timetable for
the adoption and implementation of all the planned actions, as well as an
annual ‘scoreboard’ for the progress achieved (as developed for the Tampere
programme)79.
As well as the greater coordination and harmonisation in asylum and
migration matters already pursued by existing EU policies, the Hague
Programme proposes several key steps for the further communitarisation of
asylum and migration policy:
ƒ the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform
status for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection,
including the establishment of the new European Refugee Fund for
the period 2005−2010 and designated Community funds for assisting
EU MS in the reception and processing of asylum-seekers;
ƒ the adoption of an EU approach to managing economic migration;
ƒ a greater coordination of national integration policies, including the
establishment of common basic principles on integration and the
exchange of experience and information on integration;
ƒ the integration of migration in the EU’s existing and future relations
with third countries, encompassing issues such as refugee
protection, combating of illegal migration, return and readmission
and the establishment of a European Return Fund by 2007;
ƒ the strengthening of controls and surveillance on the external
borders of the EU, including the establishment of a Community
border management fund by the end of 2006 at the latest;
ƒ the further development of the Common Visa Policy, including
harmonised solutions on biometric identifiers in travel documents
and the establishment of common visa offices in the long term.
Statewatch Briefing ‘Vetoes, Opt-outs, and EU Immigration and Asylum Law’, prepared for
Statewatch by Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex, revised version: 8th November 2004.
79 The Action Plan was published in May 2005. See Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament ‘The Hague Programme: Ten Priorities for the Next Five
Years. The Partnership for European Renewal in the Field of Freedom, Security, and Justice’.
COM (2005) 184 final, 10th May 2005.
62
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
Conclusions: EU migration policy in an enlarged Union and
implications for data collection
The governance of migration in the enlarged Union
The adoption of the Hague programme was a vivid expression of the
commitment of an enlarged Union to the agenda of framing and adopting
common policies on migration, integration and asylum at the European
level. Apart from legislative acts this will, depending on the specific topics in
question, also involve the development of ‘soft’ policies, including the
exchange of information, development of guidelines and recommendations
in various subject areas and identification of ‘best practices’. The recent
Green Paper on Economic Migration also indicates that the scope of
European migration policy is likely to continue to evolve on the basis of
what has already been achieved. The aim of this Green Paper80 is to launch a
process of in-depth discussion leading to a proposal for a new regulation on
the management of economic migration, possibly as soon as late 2005. The
Green Paper does not take a definite stand on the preferred system to be
adopted, but puts forward several options and questions for the adoption of
common criteria and coordination procedures in the management of
economic migration. Among the issues raised for discussion are common
fast-track procedures or ‘green cards’ for skilled migrants; the scope of the
community preference principle; the facilitation of the mobility of thirdcountry workers between EU MS; the application of an economic needs test
for foreign workers; the establishment of an EU selection system for specific
skill categories; the harmonisation of admission procedures for selfemployment; the combination of residence and work permits; and a number
of accompanying measures, ranging from integration to return and
cooperation with third countries.
The drive towards common standards for admission policies and
towards minimum standards for the granting of residence permits seems a
logical step after the introduction of freedom of movement for long-term
third-country nationals through the recent directive on long-term thirdcountry nationals (2004/109/EC). In addition, EU MS are increasingly
concerned that individual national migration policies may adversely affect
other EU MS. In response, the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of
February 2005 agreed in principle to put in place an informal information
80 Commission of the European Communities, (2005), Green Paper on an EU approach to
managing economic migration, COM (2004) 811 final, Brussels, 11 January 2005.
63
T H E S I M
mechanism, whose objective would be to inform other EU MS about national
policies with a potential impact on them before such policies were adopted81.
Finally, in the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of April 2005, the
Council adopted conclusions on the establishment of a mutual information
system on migration and asylum and asked the Commission to present a
proposal by the end of May 200582.
In future, it may thus be expected that one of the most sensitive areas of
migration policy, and one that is currently entirely outside the community
framework, namely citizenship policy, will to some degree also become a
Union matter, if only in the form of looser cooperation and ‘soft’
recommendations on specific issues. In any case, there are powerful reasons
why the Union should be interested in citizenship. First, ithas long
recognised that citizenship is an instrument of legal integration that may
positively influence the wider social, economic and political integration of
migrants83. Secondly, citizenship policies may be directly linked to
immigration policy, especially if co-ethnics, citizens of particular states (e.g.
parts of former empires) or other preferentially treated persons not resident
in a Member State are granted facilitated access to a its citizenship, and thus
also access to Union citizenship as well as physical access to the territory of
the Union84.
The recent policy developments at EU level make it very clear that
migration policy in the enlarged Union is no longer solely an issue of justice
and home affairs, but increasingly (for example where anti-discrimination
policy, integration policy and labour market policies towards vulnerable
groups of migrants are concerned) also one for DG Employment and Social
Affairs85. In addition, many issues falling within the scope of common
81 Council of the European Union, Press Release 6228/05 on the 2642. Council Meeting, Justice
and Home Affairs, 24 February 2005, Brussels. Available online under: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs
/cms_Data/docs/ pressData/en/jha/83980.pdf (31st March 2005).
82 Council of the European Union, Press Release 7721/05 on the 2652. Council Meeting, Justice
on Home Affairs, 14th April 2005, Brussels. Available online under http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cm
s_Data/docs/pressData/ en/jha/84618.pdf (19th May 2005).
83 For a recent reiteration of this consensus see The Council of the European Union, 14615/04
(Presse 321), JHA Council, 19th November 2004, available at http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data
/docs/pressData/en/ jha/82745.pdf (19th May 2005).
84 The Commission has also otherwise expressed its keen interest in issues of citizenship, for
example by funding a policy-oriented research project ‘The Acquisition of Nationality in EU
MS: Rules, Practices and Quantitative Developments’ (NATAC), in regard to which DG
Research and DG JLS closely collaborate.
85 The unit (D.4) within the Commission Directorate for Employment and Social Affairs now
called ‘Free Movement of Workers, Migrant Integration and Anti-Racism’ was created as early
as 1958. Article 137 of the Amsterdam Treaty gives the Union a mandate to assist EU MS,
among other things, with regard to the conditions of employment of third-country nationals, in
64
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
migration policies have become closely intertwined with foreign policy
issues dealt with in the framework of the emerging Common Foreign Policy.
Indirectly, issues of migration policy will also be affected by the
liberalisation of services within the Union86 and in future may become even
more so if service provision is liberalised at a global level in the framework
of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) (Keely, 2002; Sands,
2004).
Despite the political focus on third-country nationals, it is useful to bear
in mind that both EU migration policies (understood in a generic sense as
policies aimed at governing migration flows and the legal status of
migrants) and socio-demographic developments associated with migration,
in principle concern all categories of migrants, irrespective of their legal
status. Although it makes sense to differentiate between internal EU
migrants and third-country nationals, especially with respect to status issues
and specific admission policies, both types of migrants need to be
considered when designing wider social policies targeting migrants.
However, to date, a dual system of governance of migration can be
discerned at EU level. A first set of rules – the elaborate provisions on
freedom of movement of EU nationals –is rarely conceived of as an instance
of migration policy, which in a generic sense it certainly is. A second set of
instruments concerns third-country nationals. In practice, the distinction
between the first set of legislation concerning EU nationals and the second
set concerning third-country nationals is becoming increasingly blurred,
most evidently with regard to EEA citizens and citizens of Switzerland who,
although technically third-country nationals, enjoy a legal status almost the
same as that of EU citizens87.
With regard to freedom of movement within the EU, considerable
progress has been made towards ensuring that the right to freely travel to,
combating social exclusion and in integrating persons excluded from the labour market. The EU
mandate with regard to anti-discrimination is laid down in Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty
(see also Guiraudon 2003: 275).
86 In the Rush Portuguesa decision of 27th March 1990 (C-113/89, ECR I-1417) the European
Court of Justice ruled that companies could move with their own (posted) staff, including thirdcountry nationals (Guiraudon 2003: 276). In principle, the decision also allows for the posting of
third-country nationals who do not possess a permanent residence permit.
87 In 1999, Switzerland signed a treaty with the European Union, consisting of seven agreements
on different subject areas, including the free movement of persons. The agreements entered into
force on 1st June 2002. The agreement on free movement of persons provides for a gradual
extension of freedom of movement between the EU and Switzerland. A major revision took
place in 2004, and the last restrictions will be phased out by 2014. See Agreement between the
European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of
the other, on the free movement of persons. OJ L114/6, 30th April 2002.
65
T H E S I M
live and work in another Member State can be enjoyed by all Union citizens.
The directive on the rights of Union citizens and their family members
further reduces the remaining bureaucratic barriers to free movement while
also limiting the powers of EU MS to expel European Union citizens or their
family members (irrespective of nationality) in cases of longer-term
unemployment, lack of means, divorce (in the case of third-country
nationals) and other grounds. Over a transition period of at most seven
years, citizens of the eight new EU MS from central and eastern Europe,
while free to travel within Europe for a period not exceeding three months,
are still subject to certain restrictions in regard to taking up employment
(citizens of Malta and Cyprus are exempt from these restrictions)88.
The directive on third-country nationals who are long-term residents in a
way mirrors the body of rights granted to Union citizens, since third-country
nationals will enjoy most of the rights already enjoyed by Union citizens
once the directive is fully implemented. The directive, which is to be
transposed into national law by 23rd January 2006 at the latest, grants
enhanced rights to third-country nationals who have resided legally and
continuously within the territory of a Member State for at least five years.
Among these rights are improved access to the labour market, enhanced
protection against expulsion and the right to reside and work in other EU
MS, provided that certain conditions are met.
The implications of recent policy developments for data
collection and data needs
Before going into a more detailed discussion of data needs arising from
recent policy developments, it is worth briefly reflecting on the very notion
of ‘data needs’. Clearly, governments have always been in need of reliable
information on the societies they are meant to govern. In the same vein, past
efforts to improve data collection on international migration during the last
several decades have always been justified as ultimately serving the needs of
governments. However, that governments (or supranational bodies such as
the EU) have (or should have) a special interest in certain kinds of statistical
data per se is not so obvious.
In this regard, it is useful to distinguish between more general
information needs on the one hand and specific data needs on the other.
Information needs may, in principle, be served by non-statistical
88 Hungary, in turn, restricts access to employment for citizens of other EU MS while the Czech
Republic makes restrictions on access to employment conditional on the situation of the Czech
labour market.
66
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
information, for example by commissioned studies, expert opinion or special
committees of officials or Members of Parliament. In these situations,
statistical data needs often arise only indirectly, for example, when experts
or studies base their findings on empirical data, including statistics.
However, governments also have specific data needs, which often focus on
specific key indicators such as overall stocks of migrants or inflows of
asylum seekers. The distinction between information needs and data needs
is important, since it also implies different levels of political will to improve
statistical data collection. From a scientific perspective there are very precise
data needs. The crux of the matter, then, is to ensure that policy-makers are
responsive to recommendations from the research community when
designing data policies so that ultimately policies will be informed by sound
empirical knowledge, including sophisticated statistical data on migration
patterns.
Current efforts to improve statistical data collection and the
knowledge base on migration and integration
That said, it is clear that the massive expansion of the scope of EU
migration policy also has a major impact on what information is needed to
effectively plan, adopt, implement, evaluate and monitor policies adopted at
a European level. The European Union has increasingly realised the need for
better information on migration. This is reflected in the Hague Programme,
which states: ‘Reinforcing the collection, provision, exchange and efficient
use of up-to-date information and data on all relevant migratory
developments is of key importance.’ The Commission is also acutely aware
of the deficiencies in current data-collection practices and the scope of data
collection in general. For example, the recent Communication on the links
between legal and illegal migration commented on the lack of comparable
and reliable data in respect of the issues it investigated89. Numerous research
reports commissioned by EU institutions or conducted within the
framework of EU-funded research projects have similarly deplored the lack
of sufficiently sophisticated, comparable and reliable data at a European
level (Gächter, 2003; Jandl, Kraler and Stepien, 2003).
Various measures have been introduced since the Treaty of Amsterdam
that aim to enhance the knowledge base in this area, including the
establishment of a European Migration Network (EMN), and more recently
89 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2004) 412 final, 4th
June 2004.
67
T H E S I M
a network on integration, the establishment of funding lines on migration
and related issues within DG Research’s framework programmes90 and the
commission of numerous research reports on aspects of migration policy by
DG Justice and Home Affairs and other Directorates. One of the mandates of
the EMN, which was created in 2002 as a preparatory action and started
work in 2003, is to assess the quality of migration statistics delivered by EU
MS to the Commission. This has an important, even though at the moment
still limited, impact on migration statistics. In the second half of 2005, the
Commission will publish a Green Book on the future mandate, form and
organisation of EMN91. It will be followed by a legislative proposal on a
legal basis for the future EMN.
Recently, DG JLS has also started to publish annual and monthly
statistical reports on asylum and return, representing a first step towards a
more comprehensive reporting system on migration and asylum in Europe,
as called for by the Thessaloniki Conclusions92. In 2003, the Commission
issued a Communication detailing an Action Plan for the collection and
analysis of Community statistics in the field of migration93. It replaces a
Communication from 1998, on the basis of which Eurostat started collecting
monthly statistics on asylum and illegal entry in the framework of CIREA94
and CIREFI95. The new Communication proposes:
ƒ the adoption of new practices, common statistical methods and new
forms of cooperation;
90 A variety of migration-related research projects have been completed or are under way under
the 5th and 6th Framework Programmes. In general, the impact of research conducted under the
Framework Programmes on policy making has been limited, particularly as there were no
robust mechanisms to ensure that the results were disseminated among policy-makers and
relevant political institutions. However, the 6th Framework Programme includes project lines
where researchers cooperate closely with policy DGs, such as, for example, in the THESIM
project.
91 Personal Communication, Jordi Garcia-Marquez (DG JLS), May 2005.
92 See http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/statistical/doc_asylum_s
tatistics_en.htm
93 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament to present
an Action Plan for the collection and analysis of Community Statistics in the field of migration,
COM (2003) 179 final.
94 CIREA ceased to exist in 2002, when the commission took over its tasks, with the help of the
Eurasil network, created for this purpose.
95 European Commission (1998): Commission’s Action Plan on the extension of data collection
to cover monthly migration and asylum statistics, SEC (1998) 661. See also the Commission
documents ‘Implementation of the Commission’s Action Plan’, SEC (1999) 1475, 13th September
1999 on data collection on migration and ‘Implementation of the Commission’s Action Plan’,
SEC (1999) 1476, 13th September 1999, establishing Eurostat’s monthly data collection on
asylum.
68
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
ƒ activities to enhance information exchange and to promote decisionmaking, including annual meetings and ad-hoc seminars bringing
together the EU MS and other data-providers under the aegis of the
Commission;
ƒ changes in the current data-collection system or databases, including
the extension of data collection to include data on legal entry and
stay, second instance asylum decisions and data on the
implementation of procedures, criteria and mechanisms for deciding
which Member State is responsible for the examination of asylum
applications;
ƒ production of user-friendly statistical outputs by the Commission;
ƒ actions relating to the legal and political framework, including the
adoption of Community legislation on statistics and the evaluation
of the implementation of the Action Plan.
A draft version of the regulation on Community statistics on migration
and international protection from early 2005 proposes the collection of data
at the European level in the following areas: the overall non-national
resident population, naturalisation, emigration and immigration;
applications for, and decisions on, international protection; illegal entry,
illegal stay and facilitated entry; and legal status (residence permits) of thirdcountry nationals. The data on the non-national resident population should
be broken down by a limited number of variables, most importantly
citizenship, but also country of birth, age and sex. Additional variables,
including (i) employment status, (ii) occupation, (iii) industry, (iv) level of
education and training and (v) year of first arrival might be introduced at a
later stage through a comitology procedure.
However, as with Eurostat’s current data collection on migration,
successful implementation of the new procedures will depend on the
collaboration of EU MS and data providers. It seems unlikely that many
additional resources will be made available for this purpose, even though
the Action Plan on migration statistics recommends doing exactly this.
Against this background, the Commission’s approach of moderately
broadening the scope of data collection at the European level while
enhancing the quality and comparability of data (beginning with more easily
comparable data on asylum applications and decisions, statistics on return96,
96 A Eurostat working paper (Ann Singleton 2003) argues that, with regard to the harmonisation
of statistics, it may be best to start with statistical data on return. A comparison of national data
collection systems in the areas of migration, asylum and integration in eight European
countries, conducted in the framework of the COMPSTAT project (‘Comparing National Data
Sources in the Field of Migration and Integration’), also suggests that asylum statistics and
69
T H E S I M
stock data on the non-national resident population and data on illegal entry
and stay) is a sensible first step in the right direction. A potentially
important role could be played by the European Migration Network as an
interlocutor between national bodies and the Commission with regard to
statistics on asylum, migration and return.
There are also strong political incentives for EU MS to provide better,
more comprehensive and more comparable statistics to Eurostat and the
Commission in general. Migration statistics are increasingly used as
benchmarks to assess the efficiency and impact of individual EU MS’
policies as well as the efficacy of EU policy in given areas. More importantly,
statistics serve as one of several criteria for distributing funds among EU
MS, as outlined in the recent Communication on the financial plans for DG
JLS for the years 2007-201397. For example, the distribution of funds from the
enhanced European Refugee Fund (ERF) will be geared to the flows and
distribution of asylum-seekers and refugees across the EU. However,
asylum statistics are still far from following uniform definitions and
standards of data collection, and there is thus room for interpretation and
disagreement (on statistics on first-time and repeat applications; first, second
and subsequent instance decisions; average processing times, etc.). Likewise,
the equitable allocation of resources from a future European Return Fund
will depend crucially on the production of comparable statistics in the area
of returns (including, for example, on voluntary, assisted and forced return;
deportation; expulsion; and readmission). The same principle applies to the
running of the planned Community border management fund and the
allocation of any additional funds for integration activities. Finally, the
planned European Integration Fund will rely on stock figures as well as flow
figures, with the latter being more important than the former98.
These immediate demands and their financial implications will dominate
the agenda for improving migration and asylum statistics in the short term
and make it likely that the forthcoming EU Regulation will not become a
‘dead letter’ (as a 1976 regulation on the collection of statistics on foreign
related areas may be a good starting point for harmonising migration statistics at the European
level (Gächter, 2003).
97 See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
establishing a Framework Programme on solidarity and the management of migration flows for
the period 2007−2013, COM (2005) 123 final. The Communication includes proposals for council
decisions on each of the four funds to be established and /or continued.
98 Currently, the Commission suggests using figures on the stock of third-country nationals,
whereas from a scientific point of view it is more meaningful to use a broader category of
immigrants defined by country of birth, even if a priority of the fund will be to support
activities targeting newcomers.
70
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
workers arguably was99). At the same time, however, the medium- to longterm requirements for improving migration statistics should not be lost from
sight, whether they are directly linked to the current policy agenda or not.
An important impetus for the improvement, harmonisation and
expansion of data collection is also coming from quite a different angle – that
of human rights. A new agency – the Fundamental Rights Agency (which
will succeed the EUMC100) – will be established to monitor human rights
issues in view of the Charter of Fundamental Rights adopted at the Council
in Nice and since incorporated in the Constitutional Treaty. One of the tasks
of the agency will be the ‘collection and analysis of objective, reliable and
comparable data at European level’101 on human rights issues in general, but
especially (continuing the work of the EUMC) on human rights associated
with migration and minorities, such as discrimination, racism, xenophobia
and social exclusion. This underlines yet again the broad consensus that
exists at EU level on the need for comparable data on these issues. Similarly,
the recent Commission proposal for a Framework Programme for Human
Rights, which, inter alia, includes proposals for council decisions on the
‘Specific Programme Fight against Violence (Daphne)’102 and a programme
on ‘Fundamental Rights and Citizenship’103, stresses the importance of the
collection and analysis of comparable data on all the issues covered by the
Communication. For example, one of the activities planned in the
framework of these programmes is the promotion of ‘studies and research,
opinion polls and surveys, formulation of indicators and common
methodologies, collection, development and dissemination of data and
statistics’.
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 311/76 of 9th February 1976 on the compilation of statistics on
foreign workers.
100 At the time of writing it is unclear how the EUMC will be transformed into the Fundamental
Rights Agency. In any case, judging by the preliminary outcomes of the public consultation
process, the priorities of the EUMC (racism, xenophobia, discrimination, anti-Semitism and
anti-Islamism) will continue to be priorities of the planned new agency (see European Policy
Evaluation Consortium 2005, ‘Preparatory Study for Impact Assessment and Exante [sic]
Evaluation of Fundamental Rights Agency’, Public Hearing Report. Brussels, February 2005).
101 Communication from the Commission, the Fundamental Rights Agency, COM (2004) 693
Final, 25th October 2004 (SEC (2004) 1281), p.8.
102 As in previous Daphne programmes, there will be a strong focus on violence against women
and children. One of the issues related to migration, which Daphne seeks to address, is
trafficking of women for sexual exploitation.
103 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
establishing for the period 2007−2013 a Framework Programme on fundamental rights and
justice, COM (2005) 122 final, 6th April 2005.
99
71
T H E S I M
Finally, the proposed increase in the overall budget share of DG JLS from
0.5% in 2006 to 1.3% in 2013 is a vivid expression of the high priority that is
being given to the policy fields for which it is responsible, including
migration. Judging from recent Commission proposals, it can be expected
that the resources devoted to improving and expanding data collection will
also increase.
Future data needs and recommendations
The forthcoming EU Regulation on community statistics covers a broad
field of data needs. However, several blind spots remain, and these will be
discussed briefly below.
Third-country nationals who are long-term residents of a Member State
With regard to third-country nationals, the directive on long-term
residents is certainly one of the most important legal instruments to date.
Given that this directive has potentially far-reaching consequences for the
internal migration of long-term residents between EU MS, there will soon be
a demand for detailed statistics on stocks of third-country nationals in those
states, broken down by length of residence. This expectation was clearly
shared by the Commission when it included an optional breakdown by year
of arrival. More importantly, however, no mechanism currently exists or is
planned for the monitoring of secondary movements of third-country
nationals from their first country of residence to another EU MS. Such
information is certainly needed, first to monitor the effects of the new
legislation on internal EU migration, and second to be able to keep up-todate population statistics on the first countries of residence (see also the
discussion of emigration below).
Internal EU migrants
Surprisingly little attention has been paid – either by policy-makers or
researchers – to internal migration within the EU. This is all the more
surprising since the recent enlargement has involved a major debate on the
scale of migration to be expected from the new EU MS. Where statistics are
concerned, there is a legitimate concern that the facilitation of mobility for
EU citizens (most recently by the formal abolition of permit requirements for
72
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
EU citizens residing in another Member State104), will lead to a decrease in
the availability of data on internal EU migrants (for example, because they
will no longer be included in aliens registers), and also to a decline in the
quality of the data more generally. For many planning and other policy
purposes, however, it is essential that internal EU migrants are just as well
covered by statistics as are third-country nationals. In addition, there is also
likely to be a specific need for information on particular categories of
internal EU migrants, such as highly skilled migrants. For example, while it
may be true that the overall scale of labour migration from Central and
Eastern Europe will not be dramatic for Europe as whole, continuing wage
differentials will remain an important factor in the migration decisions of a
particularly mobile segment of the population, namely highly skilled
migrants (for example young researchers, but also nurses and other
professionals highly in demand elsewhere in the Union). To address
imbalances and shortages of skilled workers in the source countries, precise
information will be needed. Better knowledge about skilled (internal)
migration within Europe would also provide valuable information for
improving the design of research and labour market policies for specific
labour market niches.
Emigration
Emigration is not an issue high on the agenda of policy-makers. From a
data perspective, however, good information on emigration is crucial to
accurate accounts of the migrant and overall resident population in a given
country, and more specifically in respect of the outflows of particular groups
of highly skilled people (as discussed above). Good information on
emigration is needed to monitor both internal EU migration and migration
to and from third countries. Emigration statistics will become even more
important when the directive on long-term residents enters into force.
Longitudinal data
Particularly in the ‘new’ fields of migration policy, integration and antidiscrimination, not only will a wide range of socioeconomic data be
required, but longitudinal data will also be needed to monitor the processes
of integration (or conversely, social exclusion and discrimination) over time.
Longitudinal data are also key to understanding the socioeconomic
104
Several EU MS have already abolished residence permits for all EU residents.
73
T H E S I M
consequences of acquiring an improved legal status (e.g. permanent
residency, citizenship), and whether certain categories of migrants, with
certain socioeconomic characteristics, are more or less likely to acquire such
status. This, in turn, will be extremely important information for policymakers.
Planning data policies
The Action Plan on statistics, and the forthcoming EU Regulation, are
geared towards achieving comparable data at a European level. A
comprehensive review of national data-collection systems and the
identification of gaps in data collection – both in quality and in scope –
would also be a worthwhile undertaking, even if in many areas
comparability (and thus supranational data collection) will not be achieved
in the short or medium term. Thus, a necessary corollary for the collection of
migration statistics at a European level (and arguably a prerequisite for a
future expansion of data collection in this area) is the development of
guidelines on the scope and depth of data collection at the national level, (for
example, by defining criteria for what the data should be ‘able to do’, based
on the assessment of information needs in every policy area within the
broad field of migration policy). Such a strategy would certainly help to
address information needs at the national level, and would also be useful,
even if only to a limited extent (due to the inherent problems of data
comparability) at the level of the European Union.
One of the key questions that need to be addressed is the purposes which
the collection of data at the European level should serve (e.g. whether it
should give information on the persons covered, on administrative practices
and procedures, or on both). Ideally, administrative datasets (for example on
residence permits issued or asylum requests) should be designed in a way
that meets both needs.
In conclusion, improving the collection of migration statistics on a stepby-step basis needs to be complemented by the consideration of medium
and long-term strategic goals. These should cover not only the ultimate
outcome of the improvement of statistical data but also ways of improving
policy-making on migration statistics. For example, there is currently a
certain gap between the remit of Eurostat as the official data-collection body
of the EU on the one hand and policy DGs defining their data needs on the
other. To allow Eurostat a more proactive role in anticipating data needs,
and to plan ahead, the political mandate of Eurostat should be strengthened
and a closer working relationship with policy DGs established. In terms of
data collection, Eurostat should be given a greater role than coordination,
74
Chapter 1. The Evolution of EU Migration Policy
collection and dissemination. It should be given a budget and a legal
foundation to oblige its partners to collect data following strict guidelines
and should itself have an obligation to collect, process and disseminate highquality, reliable Community statistics adhering to an agreed time frame. In
addition to financial resources, Eurostat should be provided with the
necessary human resources to carry out these increased tasks. Thus rather
than being seen as a service agency it should be a primary stakeholder in
implementing the forthcoming EU Regulation, both in terms of technical
implementation and in respect of monitoring its operation by EU MS.
Better links between data-providers and policy-makers would also
facilitate the identification of medium- and long-term goals in terms of
outcomes (i.e. statistical improvements). One possible area of gradual,
strategic –long-term improvement could be statistics on asylum, return and
irregular border crossings. The latter are clearly closely related, as are
statistics on each of these areas. However, it is virtually impossible to link
figures on irregular entry/border apprehensions with asylum statistics, or
asylum statistics with data on return. One strategic goal could thus be to
work towards allowing the various datasets to be linked, in order to avoid
double counting and to gain a more comprehensive view of migration flows
across countries. The next logical strategic goal would be to link data on
various migration flows with data on migrant stocks. As experience with the
harmonisation of European migration data over the past two decades has
shown, this is already a formidable long-term agenda.
75
Chapter 2
Recommendations on International Migration
Statistics and Development of Data Collection at an
International Level
Anne Herm
Introduction
The international statistical community has long been concerned with the
availability and accuracy of data on migration processes. It has often been
pointed out that statistical information on migration is insufficient and
incomplete in terms of availability, harmonisation of concepts and
definitions and accuracy, and that available data are not comparable
between countries. It is widely recognised that migration data are not easy
to collect, and that data-collection systems, as well as definitions used to
define migration events in countries, vary significantly. The increasing
interest in obtaining more reliable data on international migration is,
therefore, understandable. Regarding statistics on international migration,
cooperation between countries is important because in every migration
crossing international borders at least two countries are involved.
The characteristic feature of the development of migration statistics for
over one hundred and fifty years has been the collective effort to work out
and apply an internationally comparable methodology. International bodies
have responsibility for coordinating these efforts and one of their basic
working methods is the development of recommendations for all fields of
population statistics. The first discussions about migration statistics date
back to the 19th century. The International Statistical Institute discussed
migration statistics at its congress in Vienna in 1891 and the first attempt to
standardise definitions in migration statistics was made in 1924. A
comprehensive set of international recommendations for migration statistics
was adopted in 1932. The current set of UN recommendations, adopted in
1997, is the fifth.
With the establishment of the United Nations after World War II the
coordination of international activities on statistics, including migration, was
concentrated in that body. International statistical conferences took place
under the auspices of the United Nations and a statistical division was
established within its structure. In Europe, the regional UN office (the
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)) makes an important additional
T H E S I M
contribution by coordinating statistical activities. Other institutions linked to
the UN are also actively involved in statistics on international migration.
The ILO (International Labour Organisation) is traditionally responsible for
data on labour migration and stocks of foreign workers, the World Bank is
particularly interested in migrant remittances, while the UNHCR (the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) is specifically concerned
with asylum seekers, refugees and other displaced persons, including
statistics on their movements and the asylum process.
Beyond the UN framework there are three major organisations dealing
with issues of international migration. In 1973, the OECD (Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development) established SOPEMI (Système
d’Observation Permanente sur les Migrations) as a continuous reporting
system on migration. The system covers several issues, such as international
migration flows, the stock of population of foreign origin, the foreign labour
force, asylum seekers and refugees. However only the OECD Member States
are involved. The IOM (International Organisation for Migration) is also
engaged in the international migration field, with a particular interest in
policy topics. Eurostat (the Statistical Office of the European Communities)
covers the same range of issues and concentrates its efforts on international
migration statistics for EU MS, acceding and applicant countries, EFTA,
Mediterranean countries and Council of Europe countries. Finally, within
the Council of Europe, the European Population Committee covers most
European countries and addresses mainly the topics of ethnic minorities and
the human rights of foreigners and migrants.
This chapter provides a short historical background, and then describes
the work of individual bodies in improving international migration statistics
since the beginning of the 1990s. These activities have been concentrated in
two main directions. The first section discusses the elaboration of
recommendations on international migration statistics, with a particular
focus on the latest revision in 1997. The second gives an overview of efforts
made at an international level (mostly in Europe) to improve data quality,
including data collection and the publishing of international tables and
research projects directed to the harmonisation of the data.
Several annexes illustrate the issues discussed in this chapter. Annex 3
includes an extract from the 1997 revision of the UN’s recommendations on
the definition of an international migrant and a comparative summary of the
recommendations from 1924 to 1997. Annex 4 displays the list of tables and
variables contained in the questionnaire for data collection jointly developed
by five international organisations. Annexes 5 and 6 present lists of
documents published by international organisations, which describe efforts
and projects directed to the improvement of international migration
78
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
statistics. These are documents from meetings that took place in Europe in
the 1990s on international migration statistics and various types of
publications issued on data sources and definitions and on data quality and
comparability.
1. Recommendations on international migration statistics
International migration is a unique process from the viewpoint of
registration. When a person migrates across an international border this
should be registered simultaneously as emigration in the country of origin
and as immigration in the country of destination. Reliable statistics on
international migration require harmonised methodology and definitions,
and equally efficient registration procedures in both countries. This makes
international cooperation to achieve data comparability very important but
also rather difficult to implement.
In order to harmonise statistics on international migration, several sets of
recommendations have been proposed at the international level. The need
for common definitions of concepts was discussed long before the first set of
international recommendations for migration statistics was set out in a
document composed in 1932 (ILO, 1932). During the next seventy years the
recommendations were revised and renewed several times (most recently in
1997). It should be noted that behind every revision and proposed new set of
recommendations lay the clear understanding that the previous one had not
been successfully implemented.
1.1 Historical overview
This section focuses on the main stages of international cooperation on
migration statistics, embodied in the successive sets of recommendations
adopted by the international statistical community.
In the context of population statistics, common standards were first
developed in the field of vital events. Thereafter the International Statistical
Institute discussed migration statistics at its congresses of Vienna (1891),
Budapest (1901) and Berlin (1903).
After the First World War new international organisations became
involved. Ever since its creation in 1919, the International Labour
Organisation has devoted attention to migration problems (including
migration statistics) as a consequence of the relationship between these
questions and the labour market. The International Emigration Commission
was created within the structure of ILO in 1921, and in 1922 the
Recommendations and Resolutions of the Fourth Session of the International
79
T H E S I M
Labour Conference focused on international migration statistics, following a
proposal from the Commission. This may be considered the first document
that clearly pointed out the need of the agreement on uniform definitions
and methodology to record information on emigration and immigration,
and the communication of information on migration from member countries
to the ILO (UN, 1949).
Thereafter the problems of migration statistics were discussed and
related resolutions adopted by the International Conference on Emigration
and Immigration in Rome in 1924, by the International Parliamentary
Commercial Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1927 and during congresses of
the International Statistical Institute in Rome in 1926, in Warsaw in 1929 and
in Madrid in 1931. In 1932, the International Conference of Migration
Statisticians adopted a resolution that implicitly stressed the fact that
migration statistics were, from an international point of view, in a very
imperfect state. The Conference adopted a set of international
recommendations for the improvement of migration statistics, which can be
regarded as the first set of recommendations on international migration
(ILO, 1932).
After the Second World War, the United Nations assumed responsibility
for the harmonisation of international statistical methodology and data
collection, including international migration. The ILO, together with its
activities in the field of international migration, became integrated into the
UN framework. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
considered the general issue of improving international migration statistics
in 1948 and, according to Kraly (Kraly, 1987), the United Nations indicated
explicitly the reasons why better statistics were needed: ‘international
migration patterns and trends have consequences for demographic, social
and economic conditions; study of these trends and patterns is required for
national accounting and planning’. The UN Population Commission, in
agreement with the ILO, published a report entitled ‘Problems of Migration
Statistics’ (UN, 1949), which presented an analytical summary of the salient
points from earlier recommendations. This report constitutes the second set
of recommendations on international migration.
In 1953 a third set of recommendations was proposed and introduced.
For the first time a document on recommended standards on international
migration was adopted through the regular UN procedure. The
recommendations, giving an overview of the state of art of the methodology
used, proposed improvements to international migration statistics in
member countries. In addition, training centres and services were proposed
to increase countries’ capacity to implement the recommendations (UN,
1953).
80
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
To follow up the 1953 recommendations the UN carried out a special
study of national practices in data collection. This revealed wide variations
in the degree of adherence to the recommendations, in particular in the
definitions of immigrants and emigrants, sources of data and the types of
information collected. In the 1970s the 1953 recommendations were no
longer considered successful in achieving any significant improvement in
the comparability of international migration statistics, and the United
Nations undertook to revise them. A new set of recommendations – the
fourth - was adopted in 1976. For the first time a recommendation was made
to extend common standards used in population statistics to the field of
international migration. This recommendation involved the introduction of a
set of characteristics comparable with those for vital events. In other words,
data on migration were to form an integral part of the totality of a country’s
demographic statistics, which relate to the size and composition of the
national population.
Alongside the worldwide increase in levels of migration, the policy issues
of international migration have grown in importance. At the global level, the
World Population and Development Conferences in Mexico (1984) and
Cairo (1994) addressed this issue. The United Nations Programme of Action
included migration-related themes (UN, 1995). In Europe, migration issues
stood particularly high on the agenda, and were included among the four
most important population-related problems of the continent at the
intergovernmental Population Conference held in Geneva in 1993 (CoE,
1993).
Recognising the increased role of international migration in global
population change and the need to improve relevant statistics, the United
Nations Statistical Commission requested, at its twenty-seventh session in
1993, that current recommendations on statistics of international migration
be reviewed. For this purpose, the UNSD (United Nations Statistical
Division) carried out a series of important activities. In Europe the
preparation for this revision was coordinated by the UNECE in close
cooperation with Eurostat. The Council of Europe, UNHCR, ILO, OECD,
and IOM also contributed to the revision. A special study on the concepts
and definitions used to characterise international migration flows (Eurostat,
E1/MIG/5/94) and stocks (Krekels and Poulain, 1998) was undertaken by
Eurostat. The questionnaire used for these studies explored in detail the
extent to which the definitions used by different data sources matched those
included in the current recommendations on statistics of international
migration.
As a platform for discussion, a series of meetings took place in Europe.
Among these, working parties were organised by Eurostat in Luxembourg
81
T H E S I M
in December 1993, November 1994 and January 1996. The compilation of
refugee and asylum statistics was discussed in more detail at the Informal
Meeting on Refugee and Asylum Statistics held in Geneva in 1995. Similar
initiatives took place on other continents, where UN regional task force
meetings were organised.
European views on international migration statistics, together with those
from other regions of the world, were summarised during the Expert Group
Meeting on International Migration Statistics held in New York from the 10th
to 14th July 1995 that resulted in a final report including proposals for a new
draft of the recommendations (UNSD, 1995). Based on these proposals, the
draft recommendations were effectively elaborated by the UN Population
Division and further discussed at the Inter-agency Consultative Meetings
held in May 1996 in Luxembourg and in September 1996 in Geneva. The
new set of recommendations on international migration statistics was
adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1997 and published in 1998 (UN,
1998a).
Eurostat and the UNECE discussed the implementation of the new UN
recommendations during their regular Joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session
on Migration Statistics in Geneva in 2000 (Annex 5). To prepare for this
meeting a Task Force was set up jointly by the UN, UNECE and Eurostat to
assess the extent to which eight selected countries using different sources for
migration statistics could apply the new set of UN recommendations.
Attention was particularly drawn to practical problems confronting
statistical institutions when attempting to adhere to the recommendations.
For the following joint meeting, held in May 2001, all other UNECE Member
States were also asked to supply information on their available data sources
for the categories of migrants identified in the recommendations. The
conclusion was that it was too early to make final judgements on the
application of the 1997 recommendations, as many UNECE countries were
still investigating ways of applying and implementing them.
In September 2003 a special United Nations workshop for a limited
group of countries covering all regions of the world was organised in
Geneva by UNSD in collaboration with UNCTAD (the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development). Its aim was to examine the sources
of international migration statistics used by the countries, to assess the
feasibility of compiling flow statistics, and to introduce the UN guidelines
for the compilation of international migration statistics from the national
data sources available. In the conclusions of the workshop the participants
stressed the need for a methodological handbook as a practical guide to the
application of the UN recommendations (UN, 2004).
82
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
1.2 Evolution of the sets of recommendations
1.2.1 Recommended definitions
From a statistical viewpoint international migrants are a category of
persons moving across international boundaries; in other words, migrants
are a sub-set of international travellers. Whether or not good statistics on
migrants can be obtained depends, in the first instance, on the possibility of
observing those characteristics that are used to distinguish migrants from
other categories of international travellers.
In many countries administrative data collection is the major source of
information about migration, as observed in the following analysis.
However the recommended definition for the compilation of statistics
hardly ever coincides with the definitions that are used in the administrative
data sources, or with those definitions which are often implicit in
conventions or administrative regulations governing the registration of
international migration.
The first attempt to standardise the definition of an international migrant
seems to have been made in 1924. The International Conference on
Emigration and Immigration held in Rome in that year tried to distinguish
between migrants and other international travellers by means of the
criterion of whether the object of the journey was to exercise an occupation.
An emigrant was defined as a person who leaves his or her country in search
of employment, or to accompany or join family members who have already
emigrated for this purpose, or a person who returns for the same reason to a
country which he or she has already entered as an immigrant on a previous
occasion. The Conference decided that: “An immigrant shall be deemed to
be an alien who arrives in a country in search of employment there and
intends to settle permanently. Any alien who arrives in a country for the sole
purpose of working there temporarily shall be deemed to be an ordinary
traveller” (ILO, 1932). Thus the terms temporarily and permanently were
included in the definition of a migrant, although there was still no indication
of the criterion for distinguishing between these two states.
Once the statistics were extended to include not only workers who
changed their place of residence permanently in order to carry on their
occupation in a new country but also members of their families, it became
necessary to identify in the statistics all persons who move from one country
to another for a considerable length of time. This is in accordance with the
common meaning of the word ‘migrant’ and the needs of demographic
studies. The International Conference of Migration Statisticians held in
83
T H E S I M
Geneva in 1932 expressed this idea in the following terms: ‘In principle,
every act of removal from one country to another for a certain length of time
should be included in the statistics of migration, with the exception of tourist
traffic.’ In order to distinguish between permanent and temporary
migration, the Conference suggested that when the removal was for one
year or more the migration should be regarded as a permanent migration
and when the removal was for less than a year the migration should be
regarded as temporary, frontier traffic being excluded (ILO, 1932).
However, the Conference of Migration Statisticians in 1932 did not define
tourist traffic and did not suggest a typology for distinguishing between
temporary migration and tourist traffic or other cross-border travellers. This
was one of the major challenges in the preparation of the draft
recommendations published by the UN Population Commission in 1949.
These set out a typology of international departures and arrivals which
distinguished visitors, residents departing for less than one year or returning
after less than one year, temporary immigrants departing or arriving,
permanent emigrants and permanent immigrants, refugees and transferred
(displaced) persons. For statistical purposes the term ‘emigrants’ was
proposed for all residents leaving the country either permanently or
temporarily, including both nationals and aliens. The term ‘immigrants’ was
proposed for persons moving either temporarily or permanently to the
country in which they were not residents at the time of movement. It was
suggested that ‘temporary migrant’ should be defined as a person who
enters a country for the purpose of finding temporary employment (or to
exercise temporarily an occupation on their own account) together with their
dependants. This definition seems to be in accordance with the usual
meaning of the term ‘migrant’, and is fairly satisfactory for many users of
statistics. The 1949 report (UN, 1949) ‘Problems of Migration Statistics’ was
taken as a base document and revised for the next set of recommendations
adopted in 1953.
In the 1953 ‘Recommendations for the Improvement of International
Migration Statistics’, the United Nations followed the principles set out in
early documents, recommending that statistics be obtained on all arrivals
and, if possible, all departures of international travellers, classified so as to
show which travellers were migrants. It was indicated that the field of
international migration comprises primarily permanent immigration and
emigration and only at a secondary level of importance temporary
immigration and emigration, including seasonal movements. Thus the set of
recommendations for the improvement of international migration statistics
adopted by the United Nations in 1953 maintained the distinction between
‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ migrants on the basis of duration of stay.
84
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
However, the time limit for the definition of permanent migration proposed
in these recommendations was ‘exceeding one year’ rather than ‘one year
and more’ as included in previous documents and temporary was defined as
‘one year or less’ as distinct from ‘less than one year’. The 1953
recommendations also established that ‘temporary’ migrants should be
distinguished from ‘visitors’ on the basis of purpose of stay. ‘Temporary
immigrants’ were defined as non-residents (both nationals and aliens)
arriving with the intention of exercising, for a period of one year or less, an
occupation remunerated from within the country of arrival. Their
dependants were to be classified as ‘visitors’ (whereas the 1949 draft
recommendations had proposed to include them among the temporary
migrants).
When, as part of the process leading to the revision of the 1953
recommendations, the United Nations analysed the definitions used by
countries in the mid-1970s, it concluded that most of the national definitions
of immigrants and emigrants did not specify any minimum period of
presence in, or absence from, the country.
The 1976 recommendations stated that an important complicating factor
in developing a satisfactory definition of a migrant for statistical purposes in
previous recommendations had been the close relationship between the term
‘migrant’ and the concept of residence in a country. The concept of residence
is a legal concept, and there is no consensus among countries on the
minimum period of presence needed to establish residence. The UN
investigation found that in most countries the terms ‘resident’ and ‘nonresident’ were not included, or not clarified, in the national definitions. In
order to avoid a lack of comparability resulting from the use of criteria based
on residence, the 1976 recommendations defined migrants in terms of actual
and intended periods of presence in, or absence from, a country.
Accordingly, these recommendations define ‘long-term immigrants’ as
‘persons who enter the country with the intention of remaining for more
than one year and who must never have been in the country continuously
for more than one year, or must have been away continuously for more than
one year’ (UN, 1980). Long-term emigrants were defined similarly from the
perspective of departure. Short-term migrants were identified on the basis of
length and purpose of stay. Accordingly, a short-term immigrant was
characterised as a ‘person who enters the country with the intention of
remaining for one year or less for the purpose of working at an occupation
remunerated from within the country and who must never have been in the
country continuously for more than one year, or having been in the country
continuously for more than one year must have been away continuously for
more than one year since the last stay of more than one year’ (UN, 1980).
85
T H E S I M
Dependants were included in the same category as the person with whom
they migrated, contrary to the 1953 recommendations, where these people
were defined as visitors.
The 1976 recommendations present the most coherent and logical
framework available to date for the identification and classification of longand short-term immigrants and emigrants. However, despite their
impeccable logic, they have several drawbacks in terms of possible
implementation. First, the definition is difficult to grasp and, in terms of data
collection, it demands that information be obtained not only about the likely
future presence of a person in the receiving country but also about their
previous periods of presence in or absence from the country. Second, by
demanding that presence or absence be continuous, they can potentially
result in biased data if implemented strictly. Finally, by retaining the time
limit of the 1953 recommendations (i.e. ‘more than one year’ instead of ‘one
year or more’), the large number of migrants who move from one country to
another with permission to stay for only one year are not strictly considered
as ‘long-term immigrants’ (UN, 1998a).
In the years following the adoption of the 1976 recommendations, the
UNSD and the Conference of European Statisticians concentrated on a step
by step process of implementation, especially through the exchange of data
on international migration flows that the Conference organised, and through
its promotion of various bilateral studies (UN, 1986; Kelly, 1987).
Nevertheless, like their predecessors, the 1976 recommendations have not
been widely implemented. A review of the practices of the 31 Member States
of the EU, EFTA and the UNECE that was undertaken by Eurostat in
collaboration with the UNECE revealed that, only the United Kingdom
strictly implements the definition of a long-term immigrant or emigrant as
proposed by the United Nations (Krekels and Poulain, 1998). Moreover there
is evidence suggesting that the availability of statistics of international
migration flows has declined since 1976 (Bilsborrow et al., 1997).
As explained in the introduction to the latest revision of the
recommendations (UN, 1998a) a simplified set of definitions was needed. In
order for the revised definitions to be compatible with related definitions
adopted in other contexts it was considered necessary to retain the term
‘residence’. So the ‘Recommendations on Statistics of International
Migration, Revision 1’, adopted in 1997 and published in 1998, define an
international migrant as any person who changes his or her country of usual
residence. A person’s country of usual residence is that in which the person
lives, that is to say, the country in which the person has a place to live where
he or she normally spends the daily period of rest. That definition is in
accordance with the concept of usual place of residence used in censuses.
86
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
The 1997 revision of the recommendations1 gives a definition of an
international migrant which is based on the person’s country of usual
residence, as stated in the Principles and Recommendations for Population
and Housing Censuses (UN, 1998b). The distinction between an
international visitor and an international migrant is made according to the
change of country of usual residence and the purpose of the visit in the case
of a stay in the country for a period not exceeding one year. The 1997
recommendations follow the taxonomy of arrivals and departures included
in the 1976 recommendations, as revised according to changes that have
taken place since 1980 and the impact of these changes on data-collection
systems. It is assumed that all flows start with the departure of citizens from
their own country and end with their return to that country. Travellers are
classified within different categories based on four different points in time:
when they depart from their own country; when they arrive in the country
of destination; when they depart from the country of destination; and when
they arrive back in their country of origin.
1.2.2 Proposed data sources
A consequence of the low degree of international standardisation in
migration statistics is that there are varying degrees of comparability
between countries. One reason for this is that relatively few sources have as
their raison d’être the statistical recording of migration.
The International Conference of Emigration and Immigration suggested
in 1924 the use of a uniform identity book for emigrants for the purposes of
international migration data collection (UN, 1949). The International
Statistical Institute proposed in 1929 that uniform identity cards and
uniform questionnaires be completed by registration offices in order to
obtain statistics. In 1932 a resolution of the International Conference of
Migration Statisticians, proposed that individual questionnaires be
completed at frontier control points and that there should be uniform
individual documents for statistical purposes. Some data sources (such as
the information collected in offices for emigrants, passport visas, steamship
passenger contracts, documents for the recruitment and placement of
migrant workers, employment permits and passport issuing) were
considered inappropriate for migration statistics (UN, 1949).
The report entitled ‘Problems of Migration Statistics’, published by the
United Nations Population Commission in 1949, limits data collection to
1
Some extracts from these recommendations are presented in Annex 3.
87
T H E S I M
only one source, the totals of various categories of arrivals and departures to
be obtained at the frontier, on the basis of a simple count. However, detailed
data for certain categories of migrants were to be recorded on individual
statistical slips of standard content and collected preferably at frontier
control or alternatively through population registers.
The UN ‘International Migration Statistics Recommended Standards’
(UN, 1953) recommended the collection of migration data at the frontier as a
main source, as only a small number of countries had a population register
at the time. The use of population registers in countries where these existed
was proposed as an additional source for detailed tabulation of data on
migrants.
In the following twenty years, however, it became apparent that this
approach was insufficient. In most European countries the source for
international migration statistics was effectively registration or field inquiry,
frequently combined with information from border controls (UN, 1980).
Accordingly, the 1976 recommendations identified three major types of data
sources – border collection, registration and field inquiries.
The 1997 recommendations include a review of the major sources of
statistical information on international migration (UN, 1998a). The four
major categories of data sources in operation in countries (the administrative
registers, other administrative sources, border data and household-based
field inquiries) are assessed from the standpoint of their usefulness and
potential to supply information for international migration statistics. It is
clearly stated that the main purpose of maintaining administrative sources is
their legal basis, which is closely related to the issue of control of
international migration. The identification of migration flows from
population registration systems depends on the rules determining
registration or deregistration in the register, and these rules vary
considerably, not only between countries but also within a given country
depending on the citizenship of the person registered. While the main
purpose of the registration is administrative, a register can also be used for
the compilation of up-to-date statistical information on the size and
characteristics of the target population.
Border data, the major source of information on international migration
flows in the previous recommendations, were by 1997 no longer considered
the best source. This was because of the difficulties of gathering reliable
information from the large number of people crossing borders and the
different degrees of control according to the citizenship of the migrant, the
type of transport used, and their point of entry. Field inquiries (including
sample surveys and censuses) were also not considered to be a reliable
source of comprehensive data, partly because they did not cover the
88
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
movements of people who left the country and partly because their sample
size was usually too small.
Thus the 1997 UN recommendations suggested that various data sources
provided different opportunities for the implementation of the
recommended definitions; for specific categories of migrants the data might
need to be gathered from different sources. In circumstances where no
source provides complete coverage or reliable international migration data,
the relative importance of administrative sources, particularly
administrative registers, was emphasised.
2. Data quality
The methods used in international migration statistics differ widely
between countries. Each country has its own methods and tradition in data
collection, and its own specific demographic analysis and policy needs for
information about migration flows into or out of the country. Countries
generally assess their data as being of better quality than they really are, and
problems often appear only when data are compared between pairs of
countries. Therefore, comparability of data between countries is unlikely to
occur without special cooperative efforts.
Despite more than a century of discussion on migration issues and a
history of seven decades of recommendations on international migration
data collection, migration statistics are still not satisfactory and are often of
little help either for policy purposes or for demographic research in Europe.
The main problem in assessing how many international migrants there are at
any time in Europe, where they are moving from and who they are is the
lack of accurate data, or in some cases the lack of any data at all (Salt et al.,
1994).
As a global problem, the lack of availability of data and the need for
closer collaboration between countries was highlighted by the United
Nations in 1953: “migration movements are so closely related one to another
that it is desirable for a given country to be informed not only of the volume,
direction and composition of the immigration and emigration but also [of]
movements affecting other emigration and immigration countries” (UN,
1953). Given the difficulties faced by countries of origin in collecting data on
departures, it was suggested that countries of origin rely on the statistics
gathered by countries of destination to estimate their levels of emigration.
Even though data on international migration flows are available in most
EU MS, the lack of comparability of the data is clear when immigration
figures in the country of arrival are compared directly with emigration
figures from the country of departure. The problem of comparability and
89
T H E S I M
reliability of data has long been obvious, but few significant improvements
in international migration data collection have yet been observed in EU MS.
A practical form of collaboration between countries and an improvement in
the coordination of migration statistics at the international level is needed.
International bodies have been given a major role in this task.
During the last thirty years several international bodies have made
notable attempts to collaborate in improving the quality and comparability
of international migration data. In Europe the first initiative came from the
Conference of European Statisticians in the 1970s, while Eurostat took a
similar initiative late in the 1980s. In the 1990s these two institutions
combined their efforts to unify data collection and support the improvement
of the reliability and comparability of migration statistics in Europe.
International bodies are also supporting academic research projects to
improve international migration data collection.
2.1 Data collection
2.1.1 First phases of coordination of data collection
The International Statistical Institute started to organise the coordination
of international migration statistics as early as 1891 at its Vienna meeting. As
mentioned by Kraly (Kraly et al., 1987), the Institute passed further
resolutions concerning internationally comparable migration statistics at
various meetings between 1926 and 1931 and in fact an international datacollection programme was endorsed in 1924, which could have resulted in
an internationally uniform system2.
The International Labour Office (ILO) also took an initiative in
international migration data collection, publishing the first comparative
tables on international migrations in the 1920s in the ‘International Labour
Review’ and the ILO’s ‘Monthly Record of Migration’ (UN, 1949). In order to
improve data collection, the ILO conference in 1932 in Rome agreed:
ƒ to adopt, whenever possible, uniform methods to make the statistics
of different countries comparable;
ƒ to compile and publish, in the meantime, in accordance with
uniform principles, statistics on emigration and immigration,
repatriation and transmigration, distinguishing between nationals
2 Unfortunately the ‘international combined method’, using national identity documents,
including an information sheet with detachable carbon copies for statistical purposes, was never
implemented.
90
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
and aliens and specifying for each group the sex, age, occupation,
nationality, country of last residence, country of destination and the
hygiene and sanitary conditions in which the transport of
immigrants took place.
As a result of these efforts, statistical tables providing annual data on
emigration and immigration of nationals and aliens were published for as
many countries as possible in the ‘Yearbook of Labour Statistics’, starting
with the volume published in 1936. The ILO also worked on compiling
historical international migration statistics and national data on aliens
(Ferenczi, 1929; 1932). This provided the most comprehensive compilation of
comparative international migration statistics before the Second World War.
There after the United Nations took a leadership role with regard to
international migration statistics. At the same time as its recommendations
were issued, the UN Statistical Division (UNSD) started to collect and
disseminate official national data on international migration worldwide.
Statistics on international migration flows and on the stocks of migrant
population were collected and disseminated through the ‘Demographic
Yearbook’ data-collection system. A questionnaire on international
migration and travel statistics was introduced from the very beginning of
data collection for the UN ‘Demographic Yearbook’ in the late 1940s (UN,
2003). However, the first statistics on international migration (both
immigration and emigration) were published only in a special issue of the
‘Demographic Yearbook 1977’ (UN, 1978). The second special issue of the
yearbook devoted to migration statistics was issued in 1989. Due to lack of
resources, the data were not published subsequently. Currently, migrant
stock data and net migration figures are available for the year 2000 in the
UN Common Database, which is accessible only to national statistical
institutions through individual requests.
2.1.2 The contribution of the UNECE
In 1972 the Conference of European Statisticians (CES) and the Statistical
Commission and UN Economic Commission for Europe decided to include
migration statistics in its work programme (Kelly, 1987). In preparation for
its 1975 meeting, the CES asked the UNECE secretariat to collect data from
all member countries on total immigration from other UNECE countries
(classified by country of last residence) and on total emigration to other
UNECE countries (classified by country of intended residence). Immigration
and emigration statistics for 1972 were subsequently collected by the
UNECE secretariat and arranged for the first time in the form of a double
matrix so that immigration and emigration figures related to the same flow
91
T H E S I M
could be directly compared. This 1972 double matrix was examined in detail
by the 1975 Meeting on Migration Statistics convened by the CES (UN, 1975).
Participants pointed out the serious lack of comparability revealed by
examination of immigration and emigration figures and identified several
important factors as being responsible for the differences. The meeting
concluded that the exchange of data for 1972 had been useful and suggested
that the CES continue work on the comparison of statistics on flows of
migrants for other years. The 1972 double matrix was published in the UN
1977 ‘Demographic Yearbook’ (UN, 1978a).
In 1978, after the UN recommendations had been revised, the UNECE
secretariat collected statistics for 1973, 1974 and 19753. For this data
collection, countries were requested to provide data not only on the basis of
existing practices but also adjusted to correspond as far as possible with the
newly revised international recommendations. The results of the data
collection for 1975 for both non-adjusted and adjusted data (UN, 1978b)
were presented to the Conference of European Statisticians at its plenary
session in 1979, where it was agreed to organise, on a regular basis, an
annual exchange of data on long-term migration among UNECE countries.
Again the CES required that the data to be exchanged should be adjusted to
correspond as closely as possible to the definitions of long-term immigrants
and emigrants contained in the 1976 international recommendations on
statistics of international migration. In accordance with this decision, the
UNECE secretariat subsequently collected sets of annual immigration and
emigration statistics and arranged them in the double matrix form for
distribution to countries. The first regular set of information contained the
1976 and 1977 data, the second contained data for 1978, 1979 and 1980
(Kelly, 1987). These early collections of data and distribution of migration
matrices took place in the political context of the Cold War. Consequently
the first migration matrices were distributed only on a confidential basis to
the governments of countries who had participated in the exchange of data.
The matrix of migration flows for 1981 and 1982, as agreed by the
Conference at its 31st plenary session, was distributed on a regular basis to
governments and other interested users. All these matrices used double
counting of international migration flows – by countries of origin and by
countries of destination in Europe − and demonstrated the striking problems
of data comparability between the countries. During the second half of the
1980s, tables with data for the two previous years were prepared every
second year and presented to the Conference of European Statisticians. The
3
However, only the 1975 double matrix has been found in the UNECE’s archives.
92
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
double matrix was complied by the UNECE for almost a quarter of a
century, until the mid 1990s4 and presented regularly to Conferences of
European Statisticians. This was an important initiative that clearly
demonstrated the significant discrepancies in the statistics on international
migration gathered by UNECE Member States and highlighted the need for
improvement and harmonisation of these statistics.
The results of the analyses of the migration matrices were discussed at
different levels of responsibility in the UNECE and the EU in general and in
special meetings and sessions on migration statistics. The matrices were
considered to be very useful tools for understanding the level of
comparability and reliability of migration data at an international level.
Several analytical studies have also used this method of demonstrating the
need to improve international migration statistics. A recent example is that
prepared within the framework of NIEPS (Network for Integrated European
Population Studies) (Poulain and Herm, 2003).
Since 1996, the UNECE has not carried out its own data collection. A joint
questionnaire, now organised by five international bodies, was introduced
instead to collect migration statistics in the EU MS and UNECE countries.
2.1.3 The role of Eurostat
Eurostat has played a very active role in coordinating the work of
statisticians at the international level. It was required to do this to satisfy the
policy needs for related statistics at the EU level. Eurostat’s task in the field
of international migration statistics is to coordinate statistics from EU MS
with the aim of improving and harmonising, where possible, information on
international migration flows. One reason for this is to support the
development, implementation and monitoring of the European Union’s
asylum and immigration policies.
Coordination activities in the field of international migration statistics in
the European Union go back to 1976, when Community Regulation No
311/76 on the compilation of statistics on foreign workers was introduced.
This regulation required EU MS to supply annual statistics both on the
number of workers and on their first employment, but did not reduce the
variety of sources that countries could use for data collection. The
consequence was a marked lack of harmonisation in the dataset (Eurostat,
2000a).
4
We thank Paolo Valente for providing us with information on the data collected by UNECE.
93
T H E S I M
In the second half of the 1980s, with the upturn in economic activity, an
increase in flows of new immigrants was observed in most European
Community countries. At the same time the future of migration flows in the
wake of the European enlargement of 1992 was uncertain, with the inclusion
of Spain and Portugal, two emigration countries, in the Union. In this
context the importance of an effective and reliable statistical tool to describe
international migration flows was understood, and the role of Eurostat in
the coordination of migration statistics in Europe became more important.
Aware of the significance of the problem, and in the light of the
conclusions of the April 1989 seminar on European Statistical Information,
Eurostat took the initiative to conduct a study on the harmonisation of
international migration statistics in the twelve EU MS. The results of this
study were presented to the Seventh Conference of the Directors-General of
the National Statistical Institutes of the European Community in November
1990 (Eurostat, 1990). The published report showed the wide diversity of
countries’ approaches to data-collection methods, definitions and
characteristics. The existence of numerous gaps in available statistics and a
very low level of reliability and comparability were considered to be the
main problems to be addressed by Eurostat (Poulain et al., 1990). In 1991 a
further report extended this study to the EFTA countries (Finland, Sweden,
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria and Liechtenstein) (Gisser and
Poulain, 1992). The conclusions of these studies included the set of tables
that was subsequently agreed between Member States and used as a starting
point for the collection of data. Aiming to improve migration statistics
within the EU, in 1992 Eurostat also took the initiative to launch a data –
collection programme on international migration statistics. The first set of
tables compiled by Eurostat included population by country of citizenship
for 1990 and 1991, and immigration and emigration flows by country of
citizenship, country of previous and next residence and flows of asylum
seekers and refugees for 1990. Thereafter the twelve EU MS and seven EFTA
countries were asked to transmit to Eurostat both general data and detailed
information on migration, and as complete an historical series as possible.
The detailed statistics, including long-term migration and stock data, were
requested from the reference year 1985 onwards, while historical series were
required from 1960 onwards by citizenship groups and groups of country of
previous and next residence. Data on the acquisition of citizenship and on
labour were collected from 1980.
At the same time, with the initiation of regular data collection from EU
MS, Eurostat took the initiative to develop a joint programme for collecting
international migration statistics in close cooperation with all the
international bodies then collecting migration data. This collaboration in
94
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
developing the joint data-collection programme is described in Paragraph
2.1.4 below.
The first annual publication devoted to international migration flows and
stocks of population by citizenship and available for public use was the 1994
‘Migration Statistics’ yearbook. The tables included data on migration flows
for the years 1991 and 1992. Thereafter the data were published regularly in
the annual ‘Migration Statistics’ until 1996 (including data up to 1994). The
next publications were in 2000 (with 1997 data) and in 2002 (with 1999 data)
and the data for the year 2002 were included in ‘Population Statistics’ in
2004. The publication of data for the years 2003 and 2004 is planned for 2006
(Table 1).
The data and some of the methodological information on definitions and
sources collected from countries were integrated in the database on
international migration, which became part of Eurostat’s statistical database.
This database includes statistics on migration flows to and from EU MS,
accession countries and other participating countries in Europe and the
Mediterranean region, by age, sex, citizenship and previous or next country
of residence of migrants. Data on asylum applications and decisions are
included, as well as data on the acquisition of citizenship. However, not all
countries were able to complete the data-collection programme and because
of errors and gaps the reliability of the database became more and more
questionable. In 2004 it was closed on a temporary basis for all users,
including national statistical institutions, until the necessary checks and
corrections were completed.
Table 1. Eurostat publication on migration statistical data in Europe
Publication
Migration Statistics
Migration Statistics
Migration Statistics
European Social Statistics –
Migration
European Social Statistics –
Migration
Population Statistics
Year of publication
1994
1995
1996
2000
Detailed data published for
1991,1992
1993
1994
1997
2002
1999
2004
2002
In addition to the usual method of collecting data from statistical
institutions, data collection through ministries in the EU MS has been
developed to cover specific groups of migrants.
A significant element of EU policy, which drives data requirements, is
the development of common policies on asylum, immigration and the return
95
T H E S I M
of third-country migrants. One part of the collection and analysis of
community statistics in the field of migration is the collection of statistics on
enforcement measures in the field of illegal immigration and the return of
migrants. CIREA (the Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchanges on
Asylum) started collecting data in this area through the ministries of interior
of each Member State. In 1992 the CIREFI was initiated by the Council of the
European Union and Eurostat was invited to contribute to both CIREA and
CIREFI data-collection and reporting systems.
Before the Amsterdam Treaty (1999), questions of asylum and
international migration in the EU were dealt with through
intergovernmental cooperation, at the level of the Council of the European
Union. Following the Amsterdam Treaty, a new DG was created by the
European Commission to deal with migration and asylum questions. This
DG later incorporated the work of CIREA into its work programme, while
data collection continued under Eurostat. The CIREFI network still functions
under the aegis of the Council of the European Union, with Eurostat
organising the collection of data. Some data extracted from CIREFI’s data
collection were made publicly available for the first time by the European
Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Home Affairs (now the
Directorate-General for Justice, Liberty and Security) on its website in the
‘Statistical Report’ for the year 2001. This was the first annual report on
migration and asylum statistics to cover all EU MS and candidate countries,
plus Iceland and Norway. It consists of 20 tables of statistical data collected
from Ministries and NSI in 29 countries (in addition to the statistical data
from Eurostat’s databases).
Supplying international migration data to Eurostat is generally a matter
of agreement between the countries concerned. The exception to this for EU
MS is data on the working population, which is compulsory for EU MS
under Regulation 311/76, now generally disregarded.
Asylum and migration became matters of community responsibility for
EU MS under the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999).
2.1.4 Joint data collection
During the first half of the 1990s Eurostat and the UNECE began
cooperating on the development of a joint programme of data collection on
international migration for EU and EFTA countries. The purpose of this was
to reduce the response burden on countries caused by the duplication of
data-collection efforts by international organisations. In order to coordinate
their data-collection activities the first joint UNECE/Eurostat Work Session
on Migration Statistics was organised in Geneva in 1993. This meeting
96
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
decided that a joint questionnaire would be used to collect statistics for the
1992 calendar year from the nineteen EU and EFTA countries. The first joint
questionnaire consisted of a joint part including three tables on long-term
immigration and long-term emigration and one table for short-term
immigration and short-term emigration. There were also Eurostat
supplementary tables on asylum and refugee statistics, reasons for
migration, population by citizenship and the main characteristics of the
active population.
In 1994 the UNSD merged its questionnaire on migration and travel
statistics with the joint UNECE/Eurostat data-collection questionnaire. In
this UNECE/Eurostat/UNSD questionnaire the list of tables was
supplemented by one on major categories of arrivals and departures (in
order to satisfy UNSD needs) and the questionnaire was sent to EU and
EFTA countries to collect data for the reference year 1993. It was decided
that Eurostat would collect the responses from EU and EFTA countries and
send the data to the other two organisations. For 1994 data the questionnaire
was further developed by the addition of a table on naturalisations, and in
1996 Eurostat proposed the addition of a table on population by country of
birth.
In 1996, following a proposal from Eurostat, the data collection was
enlarged to include Central and Eastern European countries (countries
applying for membership of the EU, plus Albania, Croatia, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro). The joint
data collection now included thirty-six countries, covering most of Europe,
with data starting from 1995. Countries were also invited to submit any data
they had from 1984 onwards or earlier if possible, to complete the common
database. The results of the enlarged data collection, however, revealed that
information on international migration in the new countries was very
partial. A detailed review of the available data and documentation was
published by Eurostat in one of a series of Eurostat Working Papers on the
database (Clark et al., 1998).
In 1997 many of the ILO’s data requirements were also integrated into
the joint data collection. As a result, the list of tables lengthened
significantly, to include information on the working and active population.
The Council of Europe also joined the joint data collection with its
publication ‘Recent Demographic Developments in Europe’ in 2000 but still
sends completed tables directly to the source countries for checking. More
recently, UNSD, recognising that the joint Eurostat, UNSD, UNECE, ILO
and Council of Europe questionnaire did not cover all the data requested in
97
T H E S I M
the latest UN recommendations (particularly as concerns reasons for
migration5), has proposed the introduction of new tables as a separate part
of the joint questionnaire. This new trial questionnaire on international
travel and migration was attached to the joint annual collection of migration
data for all European and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
countries, starting with data for 2004.
An Inter-Secretariat Working Group was constituted in 1997 to
coordinate the work of the international bodies. This group was in charge of
the revision of the joint questionnaire on international migration, the
exchange of data and the sharing of the databases as part of the
development of joint data collection on both demographic and migration
statistics. In 2000 Eurostat, UNSD, UNECE, UNPD (United Nations
Population Division), the ILO and the Council of Europe participated in the
Inter-Secretariat Working Group meeting (Joint UNECE/ Eurostat/ESCWA6
Work session on Migration Statistics, 2000).
Today the data-collection programme supplies international migration
data in Europe to five international organisations: Eurostat, UNSD, UNECE,
the ILO and the Council of Europe. According to the agreement between
these bodies, Eurostat is responsible for collecting data from all UNECE
countries and for transmitting the responses to the other organisations. The
joint data collection covers types of statistics that are needed and used by all
five organisations. As the ILO has some specific requirements which are not
covered by the joint data collection, it collects additional data directly from
countries.
The joint questionnaire is developed in close collaboration with national
statistical institutions and international organisations and it includes
standardised tables on the most important characteristics of migration. The
1997 UN recommendations are used in the completion of the tables for this
data collection.
The joint questionnaire consists of four parts7:
ƒ Part A: International migration flows;
ƒ Part B: Acquisition of citizenship;
ƒ Part C: Population composition;
ƒ Part D: Working/active population.
Part A of the questionnaire includes tables on international migration
flows, including all categories of arrivals and departures in the country and
5 Data on reasons for migration were included in the first Joint Questionnaire, but removed
from the data collection for 1998 and subsequent years.
6 United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia.
7 The full contents of the joint annual data collection for 2004 data are presented in Annex 4.
98
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
long-term emigration and immigration within a year by sex, age, citizenship
and country of previous or next residence. Data on long-term immigration
and emigration are adjusted, where feasible, to correspond as closely as
possible to the internationally recommended definitions of long-term
immigrants and emigrants.
Part B includes a table of general data on the acquisition and loss of
citizenship. In Part C the questionnaire covers the stock of population
distributed by migration-related characteristics. Data are required on the
population by sex and age according to citizenship and country of birth as of
1st January of the year in question.
In Part D, a significant part of the questionnaire covers the data on
workers and the labour force that is required from EU MS under EU
Regulation 311/76. These data provide a breakdown by sex, age and
citizenship, as well as by category of worker and economic activity.
One important requirement of the joint questionnaire is that the data be
presented as far as possible according to the internationally recommended
definitions of long-term and short-term migrants. In order to understand
problems of international comparability in the data, it is requested that
countries should highlight, for each collection of data, any differences in
definition between the national data supplied and the standard definitions
published in the UN recommendations.
2.1.5 Other international data-collection activities in Europe
Of the international organisations dealing with migration issues in
Europe, the ILO and UNHCR have carried out their own data-collection
activities according to their specific needs, often using their own sources of
information.
The ILO compiles data on international labour migration. For this
purpose, and in addition to the joint questionnaire, the ILO has (starting
from 1998) organised a new data collection on labour migrants for the
International Labour Migration Database (ILM) through national statistical
institutions. This ILO data-collection programme includes thirteen tables on
stocks and flows, the majority of which include data on employed persons
by occupation, citizenship or economic sector. The ILM was developed on
the basis of responses from ILO Member States to a questionnaire survey
mailed in 1998 to obtain basic data on stocks and flows of migrant labour.
The database complements the efforts of other organisations, such as
Eurostat, to collect information on various aspects and dimensions of
migration, as well as on its impact on the labour markets of origin and
destination countries. Being aware of large differences in statistical sources,
99
T H E S I M
coverage and periodicity among countries, the ILO attempts to harmonise
concepts, definitions and methods of data collection and it is one of the few
organisations that have produced guidelines on international migration
statistics. One of the more important projects it has carried out was that on
guidelines on international migration statistics, published as ‘International
Migration Statistics: Guidelines for Improving Data-Collection Systems’
(Bilsborrow et al., 1997).
UNHCR collects monthly, quarterly and annual data on specific groups
of migrants such as asylum seekers and refugees, and more specifically on
the asylum process: asylum applications, refugee status determination,
recognition rates, refugee populations and movements. The data collection
includes demographic characteristics (age and sex) as well as the major
refugee locations (camps, centres, urban areas, etc.). UNHCR disseminates
data via several publications that are also available on its excellent website.
The time series on refugees and asylum seekers go back to 1980.
The OECD started its data collection through the Continuous Reporting
System on Migration (SOPEMI) in the 1980s. The geographical coverage in
terms of data collection and the ability to construct time series is to a certain
extent affected by the dates at which countries became members of the
SOPEMI network. The data collected through the network is not necessarily
provided by national statistical offices and therefore the SOPEMI database
must not be considered as providing official figures. Moreover, the OECD
has no authority to impose changes in data-collection procedures. The
SOPEMI network has an observational role that, by its very nature, has to
use existing statistics. However, it does play an active role in suggesting
what it considers to be essential improvements in data collection and it
makes every effort to present consistent and well-documented statistics. Its
work is published annually by the OECD’s ‘Trends in International
Migration’, which is available on the OECD website (Annex 7) (OECD, 19902004).
The Council of Europe’s international migration data-collection forms
part of its demographic data collection, which aims to describe the
demographic situation and provide statistics to analyse trends in Europe.
The variables for both flows and stocks are limited to country of citizenship.
Data are published in the yearbook ‘Recent Demographic Development’,
with a separate section for each country. So far no attempt has been made to
harmonise data or to support the improvement of data comparability
between countries, except for some comments on the extent to which
national definitions correspond to the UN recommendations, which have
been added to the data since 1999.
100
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
The majority of international bodies, collecting data on international
migration use information sent by the national statistical institutions or
responsible ministries of participating countries. However the OECD has its
own network of correspondents in the countries or regions supplying data.
The international migration data collected and the databases built by the
international bodies are more or less fully available for public users through
specific websites (Annex 7), on CD ROM and in hard-copy publications.
Each organisation has its own priorities and traditions for the contents of
these databases and the way the statistics are published. Accordingly, the list
of variables and the number of countries in published migration statistics
varies significantly between international bodies, as does the length of the
historical series available in their databases and publications.
2.2 Cooperative efforts to improve data quality
2.2.1 Comparability studies on data-collection methods
The collective efforts of statisticians to improve the quality of data on
international migration have been stimulated and coordinated by
international bodies. Pairs or groups of countries have also collaborated
bilaterally, by establishing inventories of data sources and definitions,
proposing data comparisons, and developing other efforts towards data
comparability. All this work has helped to illuminate and explain the
inconsistencies in the data. The discussion below is limited to activities
which are documented and available through publications (see Annexes 5
and 6 for a list of documents consulted).
In addition to ad hoc investigations related to the revision and the
implementation of the new set of recommendations, most collaborative
activities have been devoted to practical studies exploring actual
comparability problems between countries. In recent years UNECE and
Eurostat have been the most active international bodies in coordinating
collaboration between countries in Europe in the field of international
migration statistics.
The latest revision of the UN Recommendations (UN, 1998) constituted a
real incentive to analysing international migration statistics in Europe and
gathering information on countries’ existing practices. In 1994 Eurostat
initiated a project named ‘Eurostat’s Special Study on International
Migration Statistics’. As the first part of a worldwide study on how the 1976
UN recommendations were being implemented in each country, this study
covered all EU and EFTA countries and was later enlarged by UNECE to
101
T H E S I M
include all other UNECE countries. A detailed questionnaire explored how
problems in the implementation of the recommendations had been
overcome. The results were compiled in two working documents for the
Joint Eurostat/UNECE Working Group on Migration Statistics in 1994
(Eurostat, 1994) and were used for the preparation of proposals for the
revision of the UN recommendations.
Eurostat also initiated a series of regional activities to collect more
information on Central European countries and the Baltic States. Starting
with the ‘Working Group on Migration’ attended by all EU MS in 1993 in
Luxembourg, this activity continued during the following years and was
enlarged through the workshops involving all the accession countries in
Prague (1994), Bled (1995) and Jurmala (1996). These activities dealt in depth
with the sources and methodology of migration statistics in each of the
countries, in order to analyse the state of migration data collection and
discover the common rules and basis for the collection of comparable data
from all the countries (Poulain, 1997).
Within the framework of the regional programmes of international
migration statistics, Eurostat’s EUROMED migration project (MED-Migr)
covered twelve countries and territories in the Mediterranean basin,
constituting two EU accession countries and the area of origin for substantial
numbers of immigrants to Europe. The MED-Migr project was aimed at
improving the capacity of these countries to produce and publish
comprehensive and reliable migration statistics which would comply with
international standards. The project’s findings suggested that the most
productive way forward would be to build on existing sources, specifically
border cards and residence and work permit systems (Pearce and Rotolone,
1998).
To investigate the possibility of data collection on third-country nationals
entering the EU, in 2001 Eurostat carried out a study on legal entry and stay
in EU. This project covered 29 countries including all EU MS, accession
countries and Iceland and Norway. Information for the project was collected
through national statistical institutes and relevant ministries. The results are
presented in an unpublished Eurostat document (Singleton and Albiser,
2002).
Several other projects have also been initiated by Eurostat to meet
specific EU policy needs, covering themes such as asylum, labour migration,
the migration of non-EU citizens, and regions of special interest. Policy
needs were paramount over the concerns of demographers and statisticians
in these investigations.
Following the adoption of the revised UN recommendations on
international migration statistics, the UNECE and Eurostat set up a joint
102
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
special task force to assess the extent to which the new set of
recommendations could be implemented. Particular attention was paid to
the practical problems faced by countries when trying to adhere to these
recommendations. The topic was discussed in two Joint UNECE/Eurostat
Work Sessions on migration statistics in 2000 and 2001. The list of meeting
documents is presented in Annex 5.
2.2.2 Bilateral and regional collaboration for comparing data
Finding more or less significant differences between their own statistics
on international migration and similar ones produced by receiving or
sending countries allows states to analyse the incompatibility of these
statistics. During the early 1990s there was an attempt to measure the
different effect of implementing the UN time criterion on migration data in
Denmark and Sweden, comparing the official statistics with adjusted
statistics based on the same data. The conclusion was that the official stock
data on populations were comparable in Denmark and Sweden, but the
official flow data were not (Grundström, 1993).
A study on cohort-based asylum statistics covering asylum applications
for the years 1992 and 1993 through to the completion of the decisionmaking process in 1996 was developed jointly by the Swiss Federal
Statistical Office and the Swedish Immigration Board. The survey was
inspired by work done by Eurostat on improving the international
comparability of statistics on asylum seekers and refugees, and
recommendations on asylum and refugee statistics (Torstensson et al., 1998).
Several bilateral efforts were made to improve international migration
statistics in the 1990s by comparing existing data on flows between pairs of
countries. Under the umbrella of Eurostat, migration flows between Belgium
and Denmark and between Belgium and Sweden were compared on the
basis of anonymous individual records. Immigration and emigration events
registered in Belgium were compared with the events registered in Denmark
and Sweden between 1989 and 1993. Individual events were matched using
age, sex and citizenship, date of migration and code of municipality of
arrival and departure. This project allowed the impact of missing records on
the stock of immigrants to be estimated. A similar project was carried out
between Belgium and Italy for the years 1991 to 1995. However the project
produced no real changes in the data-collection system of any of the
countries involved (Johannesson et al., 1997; Bisogno and Poulain, 1999).
The statistical institutions of Estonia and Finland cooperated in a study of
migration for the years 1992, 1996 and 2000. This involved the comparison of
registered migration events, based on aggregated data on single age groups
103
T H E S I M
of migrants. The aim of the study was to observe and estimate the underregistration of Estonian migration in the 1990s so as to encourage the
implementation of improvements to the system. Once again, however, the
results did not result in any significant changes (Statistical Office of Estonia,
2003).
Ireland and the UK have a long-standing collaboration in collecting and
comparing data on migration between the two countries. In the mid-1990s
the different data sources were analysed by both the UK and Ireland in
order to estimate their reliability for measuring migration flows. The
population stock and migration flow data from the 1981 and 1991 censuses
in both countries were analysed, as were migration flows between Great
Britain and Ireland from the Labour Force Surveys in both countries and
from the National Health Service Central Register in Great Britain. The
analysis revealed that the Irish Labour Force Survey compared well with the
Irish Census, whereas the UK Labour Force Survey was not a reliable data
source for annual migratory flows. As a result of this analysis it was agreed
that the Irish Labour Force Survey would be used by both countries for
estimating inflows from Great Britain to Ireland (Eurostat, 1998).
In 2005, Germany and the Czech Republic investigated the possibility of
exchanging individual data on migration between the two countries. A
comparative analysis of the legal base, the registration systems, data on
migration stocks and flows, categories of migrants included and definitions
used was carried out. The report concluded that the original idea of
exchanging individual data was unrealistic and unachievable for several
reasons, including the inability of the registration system to provide
appropriate data and the problems related to data protection requirements.
Nordic cooperation has produced the most significant improvements in
the comparability of statistics on international migration flows. This
cooperation dates back more than thirty years. On 1st October 1969, an
agreement between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
concerning an inter-Nordic ‘certification of removal’ took effect. This
agreement included the definitions to be used for immigrants and emigrants
in all Nordic countries. The idea of the agreement was that a person moving
between the Nordic countries should be registered in only one of these
countries. Until then it was not unusual for a person who moved from one
Nordic country to another to be included in the population registers of both
his or her country of origin and his or her country of destination. According
to the agreement, the right to decide if the person’s move should be
registered as an international migration or not was given to the country of
immigration, according to its own national rules (which might differ from
those of the sending country). This meant that the authorities in the sending
104
Chapter 2. Recommendations on International Migration Statistics
country had to follow the decision of the immigration country, and count
this person as an emigrant.
Although the agreement was not aimed at the improvement of statistics
on international migration it had a positive influence on the harmonisation
of data on migration flows as well as on the reliability of data. It also
increased the potential for producing consistent statistics on international
migration in the Nordic countries. A study presented in 1990 to the UNECE
Work Session on Migration Statistics by Åke Nilson of Statistics Sweden
clearly illustrates how the comparability of migration data between Nordic
countries has improved (Nilson, 1990).
The idea of introducing such a removal card for movements between EU
MS with population registers was proposed by the Statistical Institute of
Spain, supported by Italy, at Eurostat’s Working Party on Migration
Statistics in 1992. However, the idea was not implemented, partly because
legal support was missing and there were constraints resulting from
confidentiality requirements.
Conclusion
The desire to improve statistics on international migration, including
comparability at the international level, first appeared within the discussions
of the International Statistical Institute more than a century ago. Different
sets of international recommendations on this topic were proposed first by
the ILO as early as in 1932 and subsequently, after the Second World War,
by the UN. In the 1970s and 1980s, UNECE initiated an in-depth data
collection and analysis of the ‘double-entry migration matrix’, comparing
different records of the same data. In 1989, Eurostat launched a new datacollection initiative on international migration and developed many
activities to harmonise the definitions and concepts used in EU MS. At the
beginning of the 1990s, UNECE, Eurostat and later the ILO, OECD and the
Council of Europe combined their efforts to revise the UN recommendations
on international migration and to develop a joint data-collection instrument.
Since the 1997 UN recommendations were published, many studies have
been undertaken to investigate the usage and encourage the implementation
of the new set of recommendations. The efforts of international bodies were
mainly oriented to the publication of comparable data as a result of
standardised data-collection programmes, using common definitions and
taking advantage of a variety of national data sources. Eurostat funded a
series of projects to document the international migration database.
However, faced with a variety of existing data sources and different data-
105
T H E S I M
collection practices at national level, to date international bodies have not
succeeded in harmonising data-collection systems, despite their best efforts.
The work carried out by statistical and research institutions on a bilateral
or multilateral basis has revealed the deep problems in international
migration statistics, but has not achieved any significant improvements. The
only real improvement in the harmonisation of migration data has been the
exchange of information on persons moving between the Nordic countries.
As a consequence, the data on flows of migrants between Nordic countries is
much more reliable than the information for any other part of Europe.
Despite all the difficulties that national statistical institutions have
encountered in supplying data on international migration in strict
accordance with international recommendations, the collection and
publication of these data by international bodies has been a very useful and
important activity. It provides the basis for further discussions on the
improvement and harmonisation of international migration statistics in
Europe.
At the EU level, according to the Treaty of Amsterdam, asylum and
migration has become the responsibility of the European Community and
the Council is allowed to adopt measures for the production of statistics in
this field. It was recognised that a legal regulation was needed to improve
the situation in international migration statistics in the EU. This regulation
will be a significant milestone in the field of international migration
statistics. It is the first time that a regulation has been proposed for the
harmonisation of international migration data, all previous international
efforts being basically ‘gentlemen’s agreements’. Accordingly, the EU
Regulation may be of worldwide importance as a practical contribution to
the increased harmonisation of international migration statistics.
106
Section 2
Administrative Systems of Data Collection
Chapter 3
Registration of the Resident Population
Michel Poulain
Introduction
Administrative registers are the main data sources for producing
statistics on population stocks and international migration flows. In the light
of the EU Regulation on international migration statistics, a description of
these registers and their underlying administrative procedures is therefore
essential. The need for a system of registration that covers the resident
population for administrative purposes exists in most EU MS. The main
objective of this kind of registration system is to identify persons
(individuals) and to keep individual records. The basic identification
variables are first name, surname and date and place of birth. As a general
rule, the date and place of death are added to this information to distinguish
between people who are dead and those who are alive1. Several
administrative tools and registers are used to register the population. The
most basic one is the civil register, where all births, deaths, marriages and
divorces are recorded. When local civil registers are centralised in a central
civil register a personal identification number (PIN) is allocated to each
individual in order to link all the events relating to the same person. The
PIN is also a key element in developing a population register, where all the
administrative information on the resident population (including the place
of residence) is collected at individual level and continually updated. These
administrative registers may coexist and also be linked to an ID card system.
This chapter considers these various administrative registers. A large part of
it is devoted to population registers, at local or national level, as these are the
most appropriate data source for enumerating the resident population and
recording all migrations (as requested in the EU Regulation).
1 Some persons are recorded as alive in the register, but may actually be dead if deaths
occurring abroad are not accurately entered into the registration system.
T H E S I M
1. Civil Register
The basic method of registering the population includes recording all
births and deaths in an appropriate register. This is usually called a ‘civil
register’, although this term is not used in all countries. Birth and death
records are generally linked for the same person and, in some countries,
marriages and divorces are also recorded in this system so that information
on marital status is available and systematically updated. Finally,
information about parents, spouses and children is often added so that the
identification of persons is more effective than when only the four basic
variables are available. Such a civil register may be computerised and
centralised, or simply handwritten and local. In centralised civil registers the
identification process is more effective in principle, as, in principle, any
duplication or misidentification can be avoided. The civil registration of all
births, deaths, marriages and divorces exists in all EU MS, mostly at local
level. In Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Malta, Portugal and the United
Kingdom this is the only system for registering the population (Comparative
Table 1). It covers only events that occur within the country and therefore
does not include the whole resident population, as people for whom no
event is recorded are not covered. In Cyprus, France and Malta, the civil
register is centralised at national level. Finally, in Cyprus, Greece and Malta,
it is considered to be a population register for nationals as everyone should
be included and attached to a given local administration, with the possibility
of changing this place of registration as in a normal population register.
2. Personal identification number (PIN)
In order to facilitate the identification of persons and the linkage of all
information related to the same person, a unique personal identity number
(PIN) is often used for the registration of the population. The first PIN,
introduced in France in 1948, was in fact a birth number (INSEE, 1971).
When registers were centralised and computer systems began to be used,
their efficient operation required that each individual be identified by a
single, universal code. This personal identity number (also known as a
personal identity code, or numéro national in French) is based on a universal
numbering system.
Numerals are preferred as the primary referents or standard identifiers in
database computer systems because computer operations are based on a
numerical system and any other codes must be translated into a number
for computer applications. If more than one code is applied to the records
of a single individual, the chances of error are increased. A unique and
universal number is efficient and easy to handle for comparing and
110
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
sorting, storage capacity is increased, and record matching and linking
are considerably improved (Lunde, 1975).
The structure and the contents of the PIN differ between countries, but
the date of birth is generally included in addition to one or more digits that
make each PIN unique. In all countries using this system the uniqueness of
the code is ensured and the same code cannot be attributed to two different
persons. Occasionally someone may receive two different PINs: this mainly
occurs when foreigners are concerned and the identification of first name,
surname, date and place of birth are difficult; in addition some people try to
conceal their identity. The PIN, as a computer record key, has the
characteristics of uniqueness, permanence, reliability and universality, and is
a unique and independent code because it is the sole identifier for one
particular individual and for that individual only. It is permanently assigned
and usually fixed for a person from birth to death; no duplication should
occur. The PIN is reliable in the sense that the computer system provides
quality controls ensuring that the correct identification number appears on
all that person’s records. When placed on all pertinent documents, the PIN
becomes a reference for many investigative operations and statistical
inquiries in public administration. Depending on the national rules for
individual data protection, the PIN may also be used more widely in other
administrative registers (as in the Nordic and Baltic countries). In other
countries (such as France and Austria) the use of the PIN is strictly limited or
restricted to the centralised population register (Comparative Table 2). In
some other countries (e.g. Portugal, Ireland and Italy), codes linked to social
security or health systems may serve as PINs.
3. Identity card system (ID cards)
Documents used for the identification of individuals in EU MS are
usually either identity (ID) cards or passports. Not all countries have
introduced an ID card system, but passports exist in all EU MS (although
they are not compulsory except for travel outside the EU). A compulsory ID
card system exists in fourteen EU MS, while in seven countries noncompulsory ID cards exist, and four countries have no ID card system
(Comparative Table 2). Where there is no ID card system, or an ID card is
not compulsory, people may be identified through documents such as
driving licences, passports (valid or not) or birth certificates. In future,
according the new EU directive, the host country may request the
presentation of a valid ID card or passport to prove an EU citizen’s right of
residence in the territory of another EU MS: “Accordingly all Member States
shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own nationals and
111
T H E S I M
renew an ID card or passport stating their nationality”2. In all EU MS where
ID cards exist, they include a photograph, first name and surname, date and
place of birth, but not necessarily the PIN. Additional characteristics such as
citizenship, marital status and spouse’s name may also be included, as well
as physical characteristics such as eye colour, height, fingerprints etc.
Addresses are not systematically recorded on ID cards3; this depends on
whether the ID system is or is not linked to a population register where the
place of residence and precise address are recorded. The validity of an ID
card is generally limited in time4, and a centralised database may be
organised to maintain an operational ID card system. However some
countries with central population registers have not introduced ID cards
(Denmark and Latvia), while other countries use an ID card system without
an associated centralised database (Germany5 and Italy) or without a
population register (Greece, France, Cyprus, Malta and Portugal). Countries
without centralised population registers may consider using ID card
databases for the production of statistics on population stocks and migration
flows.
4. Population registers
When registering the resident population most countries link each person
to a specific local administrative area and, more precisely, to an exact
address. The wish to attach a person to a specific local administration may
be related to electoral or taxation purposes and is more generally linked to
the rights and duties of a person in this particular place. Therefore each local
administration should organise a local database where all residents are
registered and the related information is continually updated. This system,
called a population register, includes all new-born children and newly
registered persons and excludes those who have died or transferred their
registration to another local administrative unit.
Historically, population registers within each local administration
worked independently and there was no transfer of information between
them (Bertillon, 1890; Nicolaï, 1906). During the second half of the
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29th April 2004 on the
right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the
territory of the EUMS.
3 When electronic ID cards are introduced the address may be electronically encoded on the
associated chip.
4 As an example, the validity may be restricted to two years for children and ten years for
adults, with no limits for the elderly.
5 In Germany there is effectively a centralised database for the issue of ID cards.
2
112
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
nineteenth century the national or regional administrations in most
countries introduced common rules of population registration to ensure that
a given person would be registered in one and only one local administration.
Strict rules were elaborated for recording changes of place of registration
and exchanging information between municipalities. Before computer
systems came into use, the population registers were exclusively local
registers: although they were already connected through written exchange
of information, centralised databases did not exist.
In the Nordic countries, from the 1960s onwards, PINs were introduced,
computerised centralised databases were built and an electronic exchange of
information between local and central administrations was organised.
Nowadays the majority of the 25 EU MS have centralised population
registration systems (Comparative Table 1). Among the eighteen EU MS
having population registers only Germany6 and Italy7 do not yet have
centralised systems, although some plans exist at regional or national level8.
Even where centralised population registration systems have been
introduced, local authorities retain the main responsibility for holding and
updating all information related to their resident populations, and the local
population registers still exist as mirror copies of part of the centralised
population register.
Up to now, no system has been developed to ensure that any given
person will be registered in one and only one EU MS. However the Nordic
countries have introduced common rules for recording inter-Nordic
migrations and they exchange information so as to avoid the problem of
double registration9. According to information gathered by the THESIM
project, it is clear that, at the EU level, double counting and undercounting
are real problems.
6 In Germany the population registration system is centralised only in some Länder (Berlin,
Hamburg, Rheinland-Pfalz).
7 In Italy there are plans for the centralisation of all local population registers (anagrafe) in order
to build an Indice Nazionale delle Anagrafi.
8 In the Netherlands, the system is based on a network of local population registers with a
limited centralised database.
9 As early as 1st October 1969 an agreement between Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden on an inter-Nordic ‘certification of removal’ and the definitions of immigration and
emigration in the Nordic countries took effect. More recently an electronic exchange of
information on inter-Nordic migrants has been organised.
113
T H E S I M
5. Responsibility
Population registers are potentially the most appropriate data sources for
producing statistics on population stocks and flows as requested by the EU
Regulation. The authority in charge of registering the population varies
between EU MS. Sweden, which may be considered as a pioneer in building
population registers, is a specific case as the system was centralised when it
was still the responsibility of the Lutheran church. Only in 1991 did the
population registers become the responsibility of the Tax Board Authority.
As in Norway, the local tax offices in Sweden have the basic responsibility
for keeping the information related to all the inhabitants of their territory. In
both countries the local administrations are not involved in updating the
population registers, and like all other public administrations, they have
access to the data gathered by the tax offices only through the centralised
population registration system.
In most other EU MS, the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for the
management of the population registration system. As already mentioned
local administrations are the main authorities responsible for the
management of the population registers and updating all the information
related to the resident population. The updating processes have been
developed according to strict common rules which ensure the necessary
exchange of data between municipalities. In this framework, local autonomy
in population registration is rather limited compared to the historical
situation where some cities developed independent population registers
during the 18th century. As a consequence of the centralisation process that
occurred in most EU MS during the second half of the twentieth century the
local administrations lost some responsibilities. Depending on the country
and local public opinion, either the Ministry of the Interior or the local
municipalities are presented as the main responsible authorities for
registering the population. For example, in the Netherlands, the population
registration system is held by each municipality under the rules issued by
the Ministry of the Interior (including some specific rules related to the
exchange of information between municipalities). There is no central
population register as such, but a limited central database with a little
identification information and no historical data exists. The situation is
different in Belgium, where all information collected at municipality level is
transferred directly to the central population register and each municipality
114
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
uses a ‘mirror’ copy of the central population register. But there are signs
that these differences between countries may disappear in future10.
6. Place of residence
The place of a person’s administrative registration is not necessarily the
place of usual residence. The latter is requested in the EU Regulation and
defined by the UN census recommendations as the ‘place where the person
spends most of his/her daily night-rest’ (UNECE, 1998, §30). An overview of
the situation in all twenty-five EU MS of the way the place of residence is
defined when compiling population registers for the resident population is
provided in Comparative Table 2.
The place of administrative registration is a broader concept in which a
person is linked to a given local administrative unit for all duties and rights
managed at the local level11. For this purpose every person has to be
registered in a specific place or administrative unit (which can be changed).
When a change of place of registration is declared it is not always necessary
to prove that the concrete dwelling and the precise address given by the
person is really his or her usual place of residence. Accordingly the place of
registration often differs from the place of usual residence, for reasons that
may be financial, practical or simply sentimental. An administrative register
using only this broad concept of place of administrative registration is not a
population register in the strict sense, as a population register should
include the place of usual residence and record all changes of address.
However no EU MS using a population register follows this strictest rule;
they all employ a concept of place of administrative residence which is more
or less close to the place of usual residence. In Cyprus, Greece and Malta the
civil registers may be considered as population registers for citizens because
everyone is registered in a local administrative unit and is allowed to change
this place of administrative registration. Nevertheless, these administrative
registers will never be useful for producing statistics on population stocks
and flows as some categories of persons living in the country are not
included, while others living permanently abroad are. More significantly for
the purposes of this chapter, the system in these three countries does not
10 For example, there are plans in the Netherlands to improve the centralised register by
including all individual information and keeping historical data.
11 Note that a concept of place of legal residence or domicile is used in judicial matters and is
related to the civil code. This place may be different from the place of administrative
registration as well as from the place of usual residence. This concept is not used for population
registration in EU MS, although the term ‘domicile’ is sometimes used to refer to the place of
residence in official documents in Finland, Belgium and Luxembourg.
115
T H E S I M
allow a reliable measurement of migration flows, both internal and
international. The basic characteristics of a population register, whether it be
held at local level or centralised, are the coverage of the whole resident
population and the continuous updating of the administrative place of
residence and address.
Depending on national rules and legislation, the administrative place of
residence used in the population register may be just an address of
administrative convenience or a concept much closer to the EU and UN
definition of the place of usual residence (where the person effectively
spends most of his/her daily night-rest). Three main types of concept are
used in the eighteen EU MS effectively using population registers
(Comparative Table 2):
ƒ Place of (unique) residence:
where only a unique place of residence is registered, this place is
called the place of residence and, depending on the country,
different types of investigations and rules have to be followed in
order to ensure and prove that this unique place of residence is the
usual place of residence of the person concerned.
ƒ Place of principal residence and place of secondary residence:
when multiple places of residence are allowed in the population
registration system, the person concerned has to specify which is his
or her principal place of residence (according to rules about the
duration of stay in each place of residence and in some cases the size
of the population in the different local administrations concerned).
However the choice is often based on self-declaration without any
checking, and in this context the differences in taxation and other
concrete local advantages are often the deciding factor.
ƒ Place of permanent residence and place of temporary residence:
if somebody changes his or her place of residence for a short period
of time and retains the possibility of returning to live in the previous
place of residence, the latter is named the permanent place of
residence while the new one is considered a temporary place of
residence. Both places of residence are included in the population
registration system and links exist in the person’s record with both
local administrations. All changes of residence, both permanent and
temporary, have to be declared. These concepts of permanent and
temporary residences exist in most of the newer EU MS and the
situation is inherited from the past, when the place of permanent
residence was considered as the place where the person had the right
to live and to work and an internal passport attested to this fact.
116
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
Population registers may be organised and updated either at the local
level in independent databases with electronic transfer of data between local
administrations or in a unique centralised database, often named the
‘Central Population Register’ or the ‘Central Population Registration
System’. At the international level an electronic exchange of information on
inter-Nordic migrants has recently been organised between the central
population registration systems of the Nordic countries12. Other countries,
such as the Baltic countries and Slovenia, have shown some interest in
joining this initiative.
7. Persons included in the population register
In order to assess the reliability and comparability of statistics produced
by using population registers it is important to know their coverage.
Comparative Table 3 summarises the situation in all 25 EU MS as far as the
inclusion or exclusion of nationals and foreigners from the population
registers is concerned.
In all EU MS having population registers all nationals living permanently
in their own country are included. Two other groups also have to be
considered: nationals living abroad and foreigners living in the country.
7.1 Nationals living abroad
Nationals living abroad may be distinguished in the following way:
ƒ those who have never lived in the country (at least since the
population register has been in operation); and
ƒ those who have left the country to live abroad for a variable length of
time and for various reasons.
The only way the first group could be included in the population register
is through registration at a consulate abroad and the systematic transfer of
this information to a population register in the home country. In this way
the home country could develop a register of all its citizens living abroad.
This system is operational in Italy (Anagrafe degli Italiani Residenti all’Estero,
AIRE) and in Spain (Padrón Español Residente Extranjeros, PERE). In both
cases some links exist with the national population registers (the Anagrafe
and the Padrón respectively) and citizens living abroad are not included as
part of the resident population of the country. In the Baltic countries, citizens
who have never lived in their home country may be entered in the
12
See note 9 in this chapter.
117
T H E S I M
population register through the issuance or renewal of their citizenship
passport, but only on request. These citizens are counted as living abroad
and the information on the country of residence enables people who should
not be included in the usual resident population to be identified.
For people in the second group it is necessary to take into account
whether they were already entered in the population register before leaving
their home country. Therefore it is important to know if these people were
removed from the population register or their records were simply
deactivated when they left the country, or if their records were kept active in
the database. The decision to remove a person may have an important
administrative impact for both the person and the municipality concerned,
as deregistered people are no longer considered as part of the legal or de jure
population of the locality or the country. This may have considerable
practical implications for the individual. The decision on whether or not to
deregister depends mainly on the reasons and intentions for moving abroad
and the expected or de facto length of stay. In all EU MS diplomats and
international officers working abroad will be kept as active in the population
registers whatever their duration of stay abroad. For other citizens,
irrespective of the rules, the deregistration is essentially based on selfdeclaration and therefore it is important to bear in mind the personal interest
of the individual concerned. Everyone leaving their country will consider
the potential advantages and disadvantages of registering their emigration,
such as the complexity of the procedure for declaring emigration, the loss of
financial and other advantages linked to residence in the country, the
possibility of returning easily, and the level of fines for non-declaration. All
these elements explain why citizens may decide not to declare their
emigration, and what the resultant level of over-counting in the population
registers may be. It is important to understand that these are the factors
which lie behind the consequent level of under-registration of international
emigration flows.
In some countries, such as Finland, a citizen leaving to live abroad may
legitimately remain on the population register if it can be shown that he or
she retains strong links with the home country. In Sweden the rule of oneseventh is applied: anyone who leaves the country but returns for one
seventh of the year may remain on the population register. As a
consequence, in Sweden but also in other EU MS, a significant (but
unquantified) proportion of citizens who have emigrated are still included
on an active basis in the population registers and are therefore considered as
part of the legal and de jure population of the country.
In general, the precondition to register as an international emigrant and
for deregistration in the population register is based on self-declaration. The
118
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
rules for considering a person as an international emigrant are presented
and discussed in detail later in this chapter. In some countries the local
administrations are required to deregister everybody who leaves a country
unless it can be proved that the absence will be a temporary one. Clearly this
requires some investigation; however this procedure is definitively not
applied in a similar way in all countries. Many local administrations are
concerned not to lose inhabitants, and this provides an incentive not to
deregister emigrants.
7.2 Foreigners living in the country
Six main categories can be distinguished among foreigners living in the
country according to their right to stay:
ƒ foreign diplomats and other international civil servants who are
working and living in the country;
ƒ foreigners with a full right to stay and live in the country: this
applies only to Nordic citizens living in another Nordic country;
ƒ foreigners with the right to stay and live in the country if a limited
number of conditions are fulfilled, and when a document proving
the right to live there has been provided: this applies to all EU MS,
and more broadly to all EEA citizens living in other EEA countries13;
ƒ third-country nationals who have requested and been granted a
residence permit on a temporary or permanent basis (refugees under
the Geneva Convention and persons temporarily protected for
humanitarian reasons are included in this group);
ƒ foreigners without residence permits who have been accepted as
asylum seekers until a final decision on their request has been taken;
ƒ foreigners who are living illegally in the country (including those
who entered as temporary residence permit holder but overstayed
the period of their permit, and those who entered the country
seeking asylum but whose request has been definitively rejected and
who have not been given permission to stay for humanitarian
reasons but are still living in the country).
Diplomats and other international civil servants are usually not included
in population registers; neither are their dependants and domestic
employees. However in Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain they may ask
to be registered and in the Swedish population registration system they are
13 The conditions for an EEA citizen to be allowed to stay more than three months in another
EEA country are fixed by the Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council.
119
T H E S I M
given a coordination number for identification purposes. In Belgium, all EU
and NATO officers are included in a specific part of the population register;
they do not have to self-declare their place of residence, but information on
them is transferred to the national register and the relevant local population
registers by their employers’ personnel services.
The second category of foreigners covers only Nordic citizens in Nordic
countries. These people are included in the population registers as soon as
their international immigration is self-declared and registered. There is no
need to declare their emigration, as systematic exchange of data between
Nordic countries enables deregistration to occur in the sending country once
the person is registered in the receiving country according to the specific
rules of the receiving country.
EEA citizens living in another EEA country are included in the
population registers of all EU MS. However their de facto situation is strongly
dependent on the rate of self-declaration by the people concerned. As with
emigration, the self-declaration of immigration by EEA citizens is linked to
the existence of concrete advantages or disadvantages in declaring this
immigration and being registered in the receiving country. When the
advantages are evident and the registration procedure is simple then the rate
of registration is high. At the opposite extreme, the level of registration may
be very low if the advantages attached are limited and the procedure is timeconsuming. As there is no transfer of information between EU MS (similar to
that between Nordic countries) different situations may be observed:
ƒ The EEA citizen declares both emigration in the sending country and
immigration in the receiving country and accordingly the changes
are effected in the population registers of both countries and both
population registers reflect the de facto situation.
ƒ The EEA citizen declares neither the emigration in the sending
country nor the immigration in the receiving country: in this case
there is no double counting, but neither population register reflects
the de facto situation.
ƒ The EEA citizen declares the emigration but not the immigration. In
this case the person is no longer registered in the sending country
but is also not recorded in the population register of the receiving
country: in this exceptional situation he or she is no longer counted
in the EU de jure population.
ƒ The individual declares and registers the immigration, but does not
declare the emigration in the sending country. Accordingly this
person is included in the population registers of both sending and
receiving countries, resulting in a double count in the population
stock at EU level.
120
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
As far as third-country nationals with valid temporary or permanent
residence permits are concerned, we can distinguish three different
situations:
ƒ In some EU MS the people concerned are registered when they get
their first residence permit (which is often a temporary permit or a
long-term visa) and the information needed for registration is
transferred from the residence permit database to the population
register.
ƒ In a second group of EU MS, registration is done at the request of the
person concerned, who has to present a valid residence permit in
order to be included in the population register (whatever the
duration of validity of this permit). In this case there is no transfer of
data between the residence permit database and the population
register and the registration is based on self-declaration and
presentation of a valid residence permit.
ƒ In a third group of countries, only foreigners with permanent
residence permits are registered in the population registers
(Hungary), or more often only foreigners with temporary residence
permits for more than a fixed period of time.
For the last two categories of foreigners without valid residence permits,
the situation is more diverse. Asylum seekers are generally not included in
the population register until they are granted asylum and thereafter receive
a permanent or temporary residence permit (depending on the country), or
until they receive a temporary residence permit for humanitarian reasons. In
all cases they have to follow the registration procedure indicated above for a
foreigner having a permanent or temporary residence permit. Nevertheless
asylum seekers are included in the local population registers in Austria,
Germany, Luxembourg and Spain based on self-declaration, irrespective of
the status of their request and the period of time for which they are living in
the country. The Netherlands includes in the population register all asylum
seekers with requests pending who have lived in the country for six months.
Third-country nationals who have not renewed their temporary
residence permits (overstayers) have to be deregistered because they are
supposed to live outside the country or because they are still living there on
an illegal basis and are therefore no longer considered as part of the de jure
population. However the situation varies among countries as the date of
validity of the permit is not systematically transferred to be recorded in the
population registers. These people may be systematically deregistered at the
end of validity of the permit or after some delay to allow for late renewal of
the permit. In other countries the local administration will proceed to
deregistration only after an investigation to prove that the person concerned
121
T H E S I M
has left the country. In a third group of countries, if no declaration of
emigration is made, overstayers are retained as resident on the population
register until additional information confirms that they have really left the
country.
Undocumented foreigners living in the country are never included in the
population registers except in Spain, where it is possible for people in an
illegal situation to be registered in the Padrón14.
8. Registration of international migrants
In EU MS there is no specific administrative tool for registering all
international migrants when entering or leaving the country. But the
population registers allow the collection of information about international
migrants, with some limitations as detailed above. However, only foreigners
who are authorised to be registered in the population register will be
included as international immigrants. Similarly only those who are
registered in the population register may be considered as international
emigrants when leaving the country. Residence permit holders may be
automatically considered as international immigrants when the first permit
is issued, while temporary residence permit holders may be automatically
considered as international emigrants at the end of the validity of the permit
(if it is not renewed). In most EU MS using population registers, asylum
seekers are not included and therefore these international immigrants will
not be registered as such. If the person concerned is granted a residence
permit he or she will be registered and generally considered as an
international immigrant from the time of receiving this residence permit. If
an asylum seeker receives a definitive negative answer and has to leave the
country, this person will never be included in the population register and so
is not considered as an international immigrant, whatever his or her
effective duration of stay in the country15.
14 In Spain a specific positive incentive for registration of undocumented migrants may be that
the date of registration can be helpful in proving that the individual has been in the country for
the requested minimum period for regularisation.
15 However some rejected asylum seekers may be granted temporary residence permits for
humanitarian reasons and thereafter be included in the population register and considered as
international immigrants.
122
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
Basically there are three conditions to be registered as an international
immigrant in the population register:
ƒ having the right to be registered by or being part of the included
population and holding the appropriate official documents to prove
this16;
ƒ having declared the immigration and the intention to live in the
country and therefore being willing to be registered in the
population register (this condition may include the need to prove
that the immigrant has a place to live in the country);
ƒ in some countries an additional condition about the expected
duration of stay in the country is introduced and the requested
minimum duration may be three, six or twelve months.
In all cases the timing of the international immigration is the date of
registration in the population register. This may be much later than the
actual date of arrival, particularly for asylum seekers who have to wait until
they are granted a residence permit.
There are also three conditions to be registered as an international
emigrant in the population registers:
ƒ having been registered in the population register as part of the de jure
population of the country;
ƒ declaring the emigration and the intention to live abroad and
therefore being willing to be deregistered from the population
register;
ƒ in some countries an additional condition about the expected
duration of stay abroad is introduced with a requested minimum
duration of three, six or twelve months.
Here too the official date of international emigration is the date of
effective deregistration from the population register. This date may be a bit
earlier than the actual date of emigration unless the emigration is declared
through the consulate abroad after it has occurred.
National diplomats and international civil servants working abroad will
never be considered as international emigrants. However foreign diplomats
and international civil servants are partly counted as international
immigrants in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain.
As explained earlier, depending on the country, a large proportion of
emigrants, both citizens and foreigners, may never deregister. Reasons for
not declaring the departure are usually linked to the length of the procedure
and the existence of concrete financial advantages to stay registered as part
16 Except in the case of Spain, where people in an illegal situation may be included and therefore
be counted as immigrants.
123
T H E S I M
of the population of the country. In some countries (e.g. Sweden) a citizen
may spend most of his or her time abroad for long periods and still be
registered in the country on an official base. In other countries, the
administrative rules may require emigrants to deregister, but these rules are
not applied and there are no investigations to enforce deregistration. Low
levels of coverage for the emigration of citizens are observed when:
ƒ some family members stay in the place from which the person left
the country and therefore the emigrant still has the possibility of
having contact with the local administration;
ƒ the rules do not require people to deregister if they can prove that
they have stronger links with the home country than with the
destination country;
ƒ the population register allows temporary addresses abroad to be
registered for a fixed period of time and at the end of this period no
investigation is made to determine whether the person is back in the
country.
A third-country national with a temporary residence permit who leaves a
country usually gains no advantages from declaring the emigration unless
he or she expects to return in the near future. In the event of non-declaration
of emigration, the person may be deregistered by the administrative
authorities when the temporary residence permit expires and no renewal
has been requested. Such systematic deregistration usually takes place at the
end of the period of validity of the residence permit or a short time later to
allow people to request a renewal. In practice most foreigners leave the
country at the end of the period of validity of the permit or before. It is also
possible to use the data collected at the external borders of the EU and to
deregister people at the time of crossing the border, but this requires the
exchange of information between EU MS. In general when no systematic
deregistration is done when a residence permit expires, foreigners are not
deregistered and they stay on the population register as part of the de jure
population of the country irrespective of whether they have emigrated or are
still living in the country on a illegal basis.
Conclusion
In all EU MS administrative tools exist for the registration of the
population. In most of them population registers and the procedures used
for registration allow information to be gathered on the resident population
of the country. In the eight countries where population registers do not exist,
civil registers and ID card databases may, in theory, be useful for estimating
the stock of population (although these data sources have coverage
124
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
problems and cannot be used for describing migration flows). As discussed
in Chapters 7 and 8, the population registers represent the most appropriate
administrative data source to meet the requirements of the EU Regulation on
statistics on population stock and international migration flows. However,
the place of residence recorded in population registers is effectively the place
of administrative registration. Accordingly, the use of population registers
may distort the real situation, due to the administrative rules for registration
and the existence of advantages from not following these rules. In this
situation, correct registration of international migrants is essential to ensure
an exact identification of the population usually resident in the country.
These problems are investigated in more detail in Section 3 of this book,
where the production of statistics as requested by the EU Regulation is
discussed.
125
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 1. The registration of the resident population: general characteristics
Name of the
population
registration system
BE
CZ
DK
Registre National des
Personnes Physiques
(RN)
Informačni systém
evidence obyvatel
(ISEO)
Det Centrale Person
Register (CPR)
English
translation
Type of
system1
Responsible
authority
National register of
natural persons
CPR
Federal Service of
the Interior
CPR
Ministry of the
Interior
Information system of
population
registration
Civil registration
system
CPR
Melderegister
Register of
inhabitants
LPR
EE
Rahvastikuregister
Population register
CPR
EL
Dimotologio
Civil register
LCR
Fichero de
Coordinación de los
Padrones municipales
Répertoire National
(RNIAM)
Central Records
System (CRS)
Coordination file of
local municipality
population registers
National
Repertory
IT
Anagrafe della
popolazione residente
Registers of the
resident population
LPR3
CY
Archeo Plithismou
Civil register
CCR
LV
Latvijas Republikas
Iedzīvotāju reģistrs
Population register of
the Republic of Latvia
CPR
LT
Gyventojų registras
Residents’ register
CPR
General register of
natural persons
CPR
DE
ES
FR
IE
LU
HU
MT
Répertoire général
des personnes
physiques et morales4
A polgárok személyi
adatainak és
lakcímének
nyilvántartása
Public Registry
CPR
CCR
[CCR]2
Register of personal
data and addresses
CPR
Public Register
CCR
126
Ministry of the
Interior and Health
Local municipalities,
Länder and Federal
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Ministry of the
Interior
Ministry of the
Interior, Public
Administration and
Decentralisation
INE (National
Institute of Statistics)
INSEE (National
Statistical Office)
Department of Social
and Family Affairs
Municipalities and
Ministry of the
Interior
Ministry of the
Interior
Ministry of the
Interior
Ministry of Internal
Affairs
Centre Informatique
de l’Etat
Central Data
Processing,
Registration and
Election Office
Ministry for Justice
and Home Affairs
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
Name of the
population
registration system
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
English
translation
Type of
system1
Responsible
authority
Municipal basic
registration of
population data
LPR5
Local municipalities
and Ministry of the
Interior
CPR
Federal Ministry of
the Interior
CPR
Ministry of the
Interior and
Administration
Gemeentelijke Basis
Administratie
persoonsgegevens
(GBA)
Zentrales
Melderegister (ZMR)
Powszechny
Elektroniczny System
Ewidencji Ludności
(PESEL-CBD)
Central register of
inhabitants
National electronic
population
registration system –
Central database
Registro de
Identificação Civil
Register of civil
identification
Centralni register
prebivalstva (CRP)
Register obyvatel’ov
Slovenskej republiky
(REGOB)
Central population
register
Register of
inhabitants of the
Slovak Republic
Population
information system
National population
registration system
Väestötietojärjestelmä
SE
Folkbokföringen
UK
Registers on births,
marriages and deaths
LCR
6
CPR
Ministry of Justice
Direçao general dos
Registros e
Notariado
Ministry of the
Interior
CPR
Ministry of the
Interior
CPR
Ministry of the
Interior
CPR
Swedish Tax Agency
LCR
Local Register
Offices
CPR, Central Population Register; LPR, Local Population Register; CCR, Central Civil Register; LCR,
Local Civil Register.
2 The CRS is being implemented and is believed to have close too full population coverage. It may be
considered in future as a centralised population register.
3 There is a plan to introduce a rather limited centralised population register called Indice Nazionale delle
Anagrafi.
5 A new population registration system named Registre de l’Etat Civil et de la Population is anticipated in
the near future.
5 A rather limited centralised register exists for identification purpose only, named Landelijke
Raadpleegbare Deelverzameling (LRD). There are plans to improve this centralised register by including all
individual information and keeping historical data.
6 There is a plan to introduce a centralised civil register.
1
127
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 2. The registration of the resident population: additional
characteristics
Type of
system1
BE
CPR
CZ
CPR
DK
CPR
DE
LPR
EE
CPR
EL
LCR
ES
CPR
FR
CCR
IE
CCR
IT
LPR
CY
CCR
LV
CPR
LT
CPR
LU
CPR
HU
CPR
MT
CCR
NL
LPR
IDcard
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
No IDcard, but health
insurance card exists
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, issued by the
Police
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Not compulsory, issued by
the Préfectures
No ID card
Unique
PIN
Administrative place of
residence
Y
Unique place of residence
Y
Unique place of residence
Y
Unique place of residence
N2
Principal and secondary
places of residence
Y
Unique place of residence
N
Place of registration
N
Unique place of residence
Y3
N4
Not compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, issued by the
Civil Registry and Migration
Department
No ID card
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Not compulsory, based on
the Public Registry
Not compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
128
No registration of the
place of residence
No registration of the
place of residence
N4
Unique place of residence
Y3
Place of registration
Y
Principal and secondary
places of residence
Y
Unique place of residence
Y
Unique place of residence
Y
Permanent and
temporary places of
residence
Y
Place of registration
Y
Unique place of residence
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
Type of
system1
AT
CPR
PL
CPR
PT
LCR
SI
CPR
SK
CPR
FI
CPR
SE
CPR
UK
LCR
IDcard
Not compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Not compulsory, issued by
Distritos
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
Not compulsory, based on
information from population
registration
No ID card
Unique
PIN
Administrative place of
residence
Y3
Principal and secondary
places of residence
Y
N4
Y
Y
Y
Permanent and
temporary places of
residence
No registration of the
place of residence
Permanent and
temporary places of
residence
Permanent and
temporary places of
residence
Permanent and
temporary places of
residence
Y
Unique place of residence
N
No registration of the
place of residence
CPR, Central Population Register; LPR, Local Population Register; CCR, Central Civil Register; LCR,
Local Civil Register.
2 Non universal PIN delivered by the municipality of residence.
3 Existence of a PIN with strictly limited use in public administration.
4 There is no PIN as such but there exist a fiscal or social security code that is used for identifying a
person when in contact with administration.
1
129
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 3a. Groups of persons included as residents in the local or centralised
population registers1
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
ES
IT
LV
LT
Nationals
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
National diplomats,
international civil servants
and army members in mission
abroad 2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nationals who left the country
and are living abroad
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
Non-national diplomats,
international experts and
foreign army members2
P
N
N
N
N
P
N
N
N
EEA citizens
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Non EEA citizens with
permanent residence permit
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Non EEA citizens with
temporary residence permit 3
Y
3+
Y
Y4
3+
Y
Y
3+
Y
Y
6+
Y
3+
Y
12+
Asylum seekers with a
pending request
Y5
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Refugees and other persons
having received protection for
humanitarian reasons
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Other Non EEA citizens living
in the country on an illegal
basis6
N
N
N
N
N
P
N
N
N
Only countries having a local or central population registers are considered in this table.
Including dependants and domestic employees
3 in some country, with a period of validity of at least 3, 6 or 12 months
4 The time limit is 6 months if the person immigrates from an EEA country.
5 These persons are registered in the Waiting Register which is linked to the RN.
6 This category includes those who entered illegally, those who requested asylum but did not succeed
and were forced to leave the country and those with residence permit which is no more valid.
1
2
130
Chapter 3: Registration of the Resident Population
Comparative Table 3b. Groups of persons included as residents in the local or centralised
population registers1
LU
HU
NL
AT
PL
SI
SK
FI
SE
Nationals
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
National diplomats,
international civil servants
and army members in mission
abroad 2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Nationals who left the country
and are living abroad
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
Non-national diplomats,
international experts and
foreign army members2
P
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
EEA citizens
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Non EEA citizens with
permanent residence permit
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Non EEA citizens with
temporary residence permit 3
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+
Y
12+
Asylum seekers with a
pending request
Y
N
Y7
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Refugees and other persons
having received protection for
humanitarian reasons
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Other Non EEA citizens living
in the country on an illegal
basis6
N
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
Only countries having a local or central population registers are considered in this table.
Including dependants and domestic employees
3 in some country, with a period of validity of at least 3, 6 or 12 months
4 The time limit is 6 months if the person immigrates from an EEA country.
5 These persons are registered in the Waiting Register which is linked to the RN.
6 This category includes those who entered illegally, those who requested asylum but did not succeed
and were forced to leave the country and those with residence permit which is no more valid.
7 Six months after the date of their application for asylum.
1
2
131
Chapter 4
Registration of Permit of Stay
Yves Breem and Xavier Thierry
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to describe the management of databases and
administrative procedures for the registration of foreigners staying legally in
an EU MS. These databases are the main sources for the production of
statistics on residence permits as requested in the EU Regulation. Therefore
we will propose an evaluation of the data sources, their suitability to
provide the required statistics, and the information necessary to evaluate the
quality, comparability and completeness of the statistical information.
This chapter considers residence permit databases by using the same
approach as that applied in the more general population registration
systems described in Chapter 3. It focuses exclusively on third-country
nationals and more precisely on non-EEA citizens1 as EEA citizens do not
any longer require residence permits to stay in EU MS. Undocumented
aliens do not fall within the scope of this chapter, although they might be
registered in the database in some countries for a variety of reasons (refusal
of stay, apprehensions, expulsions, residence permits expired etc.).
1. Type of database for the registration of permits of stay
Data included in the residence permit database deal with information on
documents gathered at various stages of the application for or issue of a
residence permit. Sometimes it also incorporates more detailed information
on the characteristics of the individual permit holder. In that case, the
residence permit database is part of an integrated registration system,
usually known as the aliens register. The aliens register may be defined as a
register of persons. It records personal information not limited to the
procedure of issuing residence permits. It may include not only people
holding a residence permit under the aliens law, but other categories of
people who are authorised to live in the country without a residence permit
1 When the term ‘non-EEA-citizen’ will be used in this book, Swiss citizen are considered as
being not included as they are assimilated to EEA citizens in most EU MS.
T H E S I M
(for example, minors, EEA citizens…). Sometimes, the aliens register is even
integrated into the central population register or a more global migration
information network. To summarise, an aliens register is a centralised
register recording basic identification information on all foreigners living in
the country while a residence permit database is a document database only,
related to the issue of residence permits. All aliens registers include a
residence permit database.
Several criteria are considered in classifying types of system of alien
registration: the magnitude of the population concerned (only residence
permit applicants or other categories of people such as asylum seekers,
undocumented migrants and dependants); range of variables included
(limited to those strictly needed for issuing residence permits, or other
information on individuals); and possible links with other registration
systems. Thus four types of situation may be distinguished among EU MS
(Comparative Table 4):
ƒ a residence permit database exists and foreigners with legal
residence in the country are not registered in any other population
register;
ƒ a residence permit database exists and all residence permit holders
are also registered in a population register, but there is no direct link
between the two databases;
ƒ an aliens register exists that includes all the information related to
foreigners living in the country (including a residence permit
application database) and all residence permit holders are also
registered in the population register, but there are no direct links
between the aliens register and the population register (or there is no
population register);
ƒ an aliens register exists and is fully included in a more global
population registration system.
The aliens register is fully integrated in the population register in four
countries: Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia. In this case, it is a subset
of the population register specifically dedicated to foreigners. In all other EU
MS, the two databases (the aliens register and the population register) are
separated. As shown in Comparative Table 4, it may be considered as aliens
register in ten other EU MS and residence permit database in the remaining
countries.
134
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
The degree of centralisation of the residence permit database
and the use of PIN
In most EU MS the registration of third-country nationals living legally in
the country is centralised in a single database. Usually the Ministry of the
Interior is responsible for issuing residence permits which cover all
foreigners with a legal status. Only Greece has a decentralised system: data
are locally/ regionally recorded and then transmitted to a central file at
different dates. Moreover in Greece a main register is devoted to thirdcountry nationals but two other parallel files exist, one for ethnic Greeks
(Albanian and Greek Pontiacs) and another for EEA citizens. The absence of
a single register can derive from the fact that information on different types
of permits is stored in separate files which cannot be linked (as in Malta or
the United Kingdom). This situation may also be attributed to the fact that
several different authorities are competent to issue authorisations to stay,
and that some categories of foreigners can enter the country and stay more
than three months with a long-term visa (see below). A long-term visa is
usually issued abroad by a consulate and so is not always incorporated in
the database kept by the Ministry of the Interior, but is stored in a database
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Poland and Portugal long-term visas
issued by consulates are not registered in any database at all. As the
situation is complicated, with multiple databases, the description below is
based on data sources for residence permits granted to third-country
national only.
Given that a single application may cover more than one person (children
and other dependents) and that successive authorisations to stay may be
issued over time to a given person, the use of a PIN is necessary to collate
data on individuals and organise it in a biographical way. Of course the
existence of such an individual identifier does not guarantee its efficiency. It
may be more efficient if based on a biometric measure, but further
investigation is necessary to check that a PIN is more reliable than the use of
name, sex and date of birth in identifying a given person within the
residence permit database.
As shown in Comparative Table 4, only two countries (the United
Kingdom and Italy) do not use a PIN in the residence permit database. In ten
countries a universal PIN is allocated to foreigners according to a general
rule which is also applied to national citizens in the population registration
system. Elsewhere, aliens PINs are different and related only to the aliens
register or the residence permit database.
135
T H E S I M
2. Types of authorisation to stay
There is no other domain which is subject to such quick and continual
changes in the law as immigration. Immigration policy is becoming one of
the top priorities of the European Commission and there is a move towards
increasing harmonisation of the immigration system in the EU. Practically,
this will be achieved through the introduction of a common format residence
permit2. Differences in the conditions under which residence permits are
issued to non-EEA citizens could be considered one of the most important
barriers to creating a homogeneous system. The authorisation to stay
remains a matter of national responsibility, and accordingly categories of
residence permit and registration systems differ between EU MS, which
employ different rules on reasons for issue permit, duration of validity and
renewals.
The first step for a third-country national to become a legal resident is
more or less similar in each EU MS: a visa must be obtained which allows
free entry into the country. Usually entry visas are valid for three months
and they are needed to obtain the subsequent authorisation to stay which is
always required for those wishing to remain in the country for more than
three months. Only documents allowing stays of more than three months
(whatever their national name) will be considered below, excluding entry
visas. It is important to be familiar with the legislation related to
authorisations to stay in order to identify all the categories of foreigners
residing legally in a country. Identity documents for minors accompanying
or joining a parent, who cannot get personal residence permits, should be
included in this type of immigration status.
Three types of documents may be considered. These correspond to
different kinds of immigration status:
ƒ long-term visas or other immigration statuses allowing long-term
stays;
ƒ temporary residence permits;
ƒ long-term residence permits.
This section presents a synthesis of the conditions of issuance and
renewal of each type of document in each country (Comparative Table 5). As
the legislation changes frequently this table needs to be constantly updated.
See Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13th June 2002 laying down a uniform format for
residence permits for non-EU nationals.
2
136
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
2.1 Long-term visas and other immigration statuses lasting more
than three months
As mentioned above, visas are usually a prerequisite for entering a
country. However, some countries issue long-term visas that allow their
holders to stay for a period exceeding three months (in the United Kingdom
this is known as ‘leave to enter’). Such visas have a limited duration, but
they cannot be put in the same category as temporary residence permits
because their conditions of issue are markedly different: long-term visas are
issued abroad, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, whereas residence permits
are usually issued by sections of the Ministry of the Interior within the
national territory. Foreigners holding long-term visas may have fewer social,
economic and political rights than holders of residence permits. Work
permits, which are the responsibility of the Ministry of Employment, are
included in the category of long-term visas.
Most EU MS recognise a right to stay for aliens only after a residence
permit has been issued. However in six countries foreigners are allowed to
live in the country for more than three months on the basis of a long-term
visa issued at a consulate or embassy abroad. Three countries record the
actual entry of non-EEA citizens either at the border (in the United
Kingdom), or within the territory (the Czech Republic and Hungary, where
the foreigner has a legal obligation to present him or herself to the
immigration police). In most countries these long-term visas are included in
the residence permit database in most countries that issue them. Sometimes
they are registered only on the occasion of their first renewal (e.g. in
Portugal). The most common duration of long-term visa is one year, but in
Austria the maximum is six months, whereas in the United Kingdom it is up
to ten years. In all countries were this long-term visa exists, it is renewable or
convertible in a temporary residence permit.
2.2 Temporary residence permits
Temporary residence permits are issued to third-country nationals who
are authorised to stay in the country on a temporary basis only. They are
issued for specific purposes: for example, temporary work, studies,
temporary protection, etc3. These permits are valid for a limited period and
they are not automatically renewable. Temporary residence permits are the
most common status granted to new arrivals in the EU. Indeed, as
3 Temporary documents issued to asylum seekers during the processing of their claim are not
included in this category.
137
T H E S I M
mentioned above, long-term visas do not exist in all countries and they are
delivered only to specific categories of foreigners.
Temporary residence permits are defined by two main characteristics in
almost all EU MS. Firstly, they are (or can be) issued as first-stay permits,
except in countries where the stay could start with the possession of a longterm visa. Secondly, even if the application for a first residence permit is
submitted abroad, when a positive decision has been taken the residence
permit is generally issued through local offices after the applicants actually
arrived in the country. In five countries (Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, the
Slovak Republic and to a certain extent Finland) the permit is issued directly
to the applicant through consulates abroad.
The situation regarding the length of validity of the first residence permit
differs across the EU, depending largely on the grounds for issuing it. Most
EU MS have defined by law a maximum duration of validity for first
residence permits. As displayed in Comparative Table 5, one year is the
most common duration for validity but in five countries, first temporary
residence may be issued for two years. Temporary residence permit may be
renewed everywhere, usually for a period not exceeding that of the first
permit.
2.3 Long-term residence permits
Most EU MS grant a permanent right to stay or a long-term residence
permit after five successive temporary residence permits or after a duration
of stay of five years. According to Council Directive 2003/109/EC on longterm resident, a third-country national should have lived in a country for
five years to be allowed to stay permanently with a long-term residence
permit. An harmonised type of long-term permit will be introduce at EU
level but several EU MS have already adopted the five years time limit in
their national legislation. However, as shown in Comparative Table 5,
several countries have still to do so.
Long-term residence permits are issued within a country to aliens who
have obtained a permanent right to settle. These permits have either an
unlimited duration or a limited duration (5 or 10 years), but are
automatically renewable. In several countries, the following situation exists:
a residence permit of unlimited duration is combined with a foreign identity
card, which has a limited duration (of five or, more usually, ten years) and
has to be periodically extended. This gives the authorities the opportunity to
check the presence of the long-term residence permit holders. Long-term
permits give the most secure status for foreigners, with almost the same set
of rights (except political rights) as nationals. They are granted on all
138
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
grounds of residence, except studying: students are never authorised to
apply for long-term residence permits.
By definition, a long-term residence permit is expected to be issued not as
a first stay permit, but at the time of a renewal. But there are a lot of
exceptions, mainly for dependants of aliens already having a permanent
right to stay.
3. Content and coverage of residence permit databases
Residence permit databases cover, in principle, all foreigners living
legally in the country. However this coverage has to be questioned in two
different ways. Firstly, some categories of foreigner are likely to be excluded
from the database due to their specific status. Admissions could be decided
by different authorities according to the purpose of the stay: asylum seekers
are under the responsibility of agencies implementing the Geneva
Convention or international protection, minors are covered by family reunification procedures etc. Consequently these categories of people are
likely to be recorded in distinct databases. Comparative Table 6 specifies the
conditions of registration for these groups.
Secondly, during their time spent in the country, foreigners can
experience various events which result in them no longer forming part of the
legal foreign population of the country. Basically, there are three main
events that radically change the status of the foreigner:
ƒ the foreigner leaves the country, and is no longer settled in the
country;
ƒ the foreigner acquires the citizenship of the country, and so is no
longer a foreigner but has become a citizen;
ƒ the foreigner dies.
To make the updates as accurate as possible, all these events should be
registered in the residence permit database. This is possible only when there
are a number of links between the authority responsible for the register and
other authorities dealing with third-country nationals like population
register, health insurance register, asylum register, civil register, work
permit, etc. Moreover, these links should be maintained on a systematic
basis with an appropriate transfer method (Comparative Table 7).
3.1 Asylum seekers, recognised refugees and other people with
protected status
The main question is whether asylum seekers, recognised refugees and
other people with protected status are integrated in the residence permit
139
T H E S I M
databases like other applicants for residence permits. Asylum seekers are in
an uncertain position due to their very precarious tenure, notwithstanding
their fundamental right of protection. Practically, they may be considered as
part of the legal population if a provisional residence permit (or a receipt for
a residence permit application) is granted during the course of the asylum
procedure. Such documents, if they exist, could be recorded in the database
and included as another immigration status. Recognised refugees have a
clearer situation from the legal point of view and have to be considered as
part of the legal foreign population. However the decision is frequently
taken by an authority distinct from that recording information on residence
permits, and so refugees may be omitted from the residence permit
database.
In nearly all cases, recognised refugees are supposed to be included in
the residence permit database. However Greece, Hungary and Austria do
not record refugees in this system because asylum matters are governed by
specific laws and/or a specific ministry. The situation is more nuanced for
asylum seekers. Foreigners whose asylum application is under consideration
are not necessarily included in the residence permit database because, unlike
refugees, they do not always have an authorisation to stay. As a
consequence, asylum seekers are recorded in a separate database in only
fourteen countries but not in the residence permit database or aliens register.
In the remaining countries, asylum seekers are included in the residence
permit database (and sometimes also in a specific register for asylum
seekers, thus creating the possibility of double registration).
3.2 Minors
The legal right of minors to stay in the host country can be proved by
various administrative documents. The EU Regulation mentions only
residence permits as personal documents. In seventeen EU MS minors have
their own residence permits. However, in some others, (especially in
Southern Europe), young people do not receive personal documents of stay
and fall under the competence of specific agencies. Therefore, minors will
not be recorded individually in the residence permit database. However,
children may have their own files without having a residence permit (as in
Belgium) but their presence may simply be recorded on the residence permit
of one or both parents. In this case, the number of minors and some details
on their characteristics may be retrieved from the database through the files
of their parents. Accordingly other sources of data should be explored, such
as positive decisions on family reunification and the registration of students.
140
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
3.3 Updating the residence permit database
There may be a need to update the database for a number of reasons:
ƒ when the permit holder leaves the country before the expiry of the
residence permit, or when a long term residence permit holder
leaves the country for a long period and may lose the authorisation
to return to the country;
ƒ when the residence permit expires and the foreigner has already left
the country without declaring this, or is still living in the country
illegally;
ƒ when the residence permit holder acquires the citizenship of the
country or has another change of status (e.g. marriage);
ƒ when the individual dies.
In most of the EU MS, foreigners are registered in a population
registration system covering both citizens and foreigners, generally on
condition of having a residence permit. However, this registration is made
by self-declaration and is not linked to any information on the type or
duration of the residence permit. In particular, the expiry date of the permit
is recorded in the population registration system in only five countries
(Comparative Table 7). In some countries the foreigner is deactivated in the
database when the residence permit expires and the data is archived. This
information is often transferred to the population register. In countries
where this deregistration from the population register is generally not an
automatic consequence of the expiry of the residence permit, it depends on
individual self-declarations. Accordingly the only way to know if foreigners
left while their permit was still valid, is to get this information from the
population registration system. Such transfer of data is useful to improve the
quality of data.
3.4 Updating the residence permit database with the acquisition
of citizenship and death
It should be easy to transfer data on the acquisition of national
citizenship and death to residence permit databases because these events are
continually registered. Acquisitions of national citizenship are known to the
authorities responsible for registration of foreigners that should facilitate
their recording in the residence permit database. This is particularly true
because citizenship is granted only to foreigners having legal residence in
the country. In the same way, deaths are easily picked up because of
exhaustive recording by the civil registration system. There is however a
recurrent problem with deaths which occur in other countries, the details of
141
T H E S I M
which are transferred only with difficulty by consulates abroad. Despite of
this, it seems that acquisitions of national citizenship and death are well
recorded by all residence permit databases.
Conclusion
In most EU MS the residence permit database is included in the aliens
register which records more information than only the issuing of residence
permits and covers all foreigners, whether they have a valid residence
permit or not. A PIN is used in the residence permit database in almost all
EU MS, allowing (re)identify a given individual.
As far as types of permits are concerned, the situation varies largely
between the 25 EU MS and the long-term resident status should be the first
step of a EU harmonisation in this field.
The coverage of residence permit holders is complete in the databases of
most countries. Although asylum seekers are not usually recorded, other
specific categories of migrant like refugees and children under eighteen, are
missing in residence permit database in few countries.
Transfer of information between the population register and the
residence permit database occurs only in some countries either by using PIN
or based on self-declared arrivals and departures. Only this transfer would
increase the quality of the data in both databases.
Finally, it should be understood that although the number of permits
issued is not a direct measure of migration, it can serve for characterising
international migration.
142
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
Comparative Table 4. Aliens registers and residence permit databases1
Type of
registration of
aliens
Name of the residence
permit database
BE
Fully integrated
Aliens register
Base de données de
l’Office des Etrangers
CZ
Aliens register
Cizinecký informační
systém (CIS)
DK
Aliens register
Udlændingeregistret
DE
Aliens register
Ausländerzentral register
(AZR)
EE
Residence Permit
Database
Elamis- ja töölubade
register
EL
Residence Permit
Database
Mitroou Allodapon3
ES
Residence Permit
Database
Registro de Extranjeros
Residentes (ADEXTRA)
Application de Gestion
des Dossiers de
Ressortissants
Etrangers en France
(AGDREF)
Computerised registration
system on all non-EEA
citizens5
FR
Residence Permit
Database
IE
Residence Permit
Database4
IT
Residence Permit
Database
Archivio dei permessi di
soggiorno
CY
Residence Permit
Database
Archeio Allodapon
LV
Fully integrated
Aliens Register
Latvijas Republikas
Iedzivotaju Registrs
LT
Fully integrated
Aliens Register
Gyventojų Registras
LU
Residence Permit
Database
Ministère de la Justice –
Nouveaux Dossiers
(MJND)
143
English
translation
Immigration
Office
database
(linked to the
RN)
Aliens
Information
System
Danish Aliens
Register
Central
Aliens
Register
State register
of residence
and work
permits
File for thirdcountry
nationals
Register for
foreign
residents
Management
file of records
of nonNationals
PIN used for
registration2
Universal
PIN
Universal
PIN
Specific PIN
Specific PIN
Universal
PIN
Specific PIN
for each
database
Specific PIN
Specific PIN
Universal
PIN
Register of
permits to
stay
Register of
foreigners
Population
Register of
the Republic
of Latvia
Residents’
Register
Ministry of
Justice – New
Files
No PIN
Specific PIN
Universal
PIN
Universal
PIN
Universal
PIN
T H E S I M
Type of
registration of
aliens
Name of the residence
permit database
English
translation
PIN used for
registration2
Központi
Idegenrendészeti
Nyilvántartás
Database of permanent
residence and work
permits
Database of temporary
residence permits
Basisvoorziening
Vreemdelingen (BVV)
Central
Aliens
Register
Specific PIN
HU
Aliens register
MT
Residence Permit
Database
NL
Aliens register
AT
Aliens register
Zentrale
Fremdeninformationsdatei
(ZFI)
PL
Aliens register
System POBYT
PT
Residence Permit
Database
Sistema Integrado de
Informação do SEF
(Serviço de Estrangeiros e
Fronteiras)
SI
Fully integrated
Aliens Register 6
Register tujcev
SK
Aliens register
Evidencia Cudzincov
(ECU)
FI
Aliens register
Ulkomaalaisrekisteri
SE
Aliens register
Centrala
Utlänningsdatabasen
UK
Residence Permit
Database
Case Information
Database (CID)
Specific PIN
Basic Facility
for Aliens
Central
Aliens
Information
File
Residence
System
Aliens and
Border
Service
Integrated
Information
System
Aliens
Register
Central
Register of
Aliens with
residence
permit
Aliens
Register
Central
Aliens
Database
Universal
PIN
Specific PIN
Specific PIN
Specific PIN
for each
database
Universal
PIN
Universal
PIN
Specific PIN
Specific PIN
No PIN
The Aliens register is a centralised register recording basic identification information about all
foreigners living in the country while the residence permit database is a document database only, related
to the issue of residence permits. All Aliens registers include a residence permit database.
2 Universal PIN means that the same PIN is used both in the Population Register and in the Aliens
Register.
3 In addition, there exist a file for special identity cards issued to ethnic Greeks with foreign citizenship
and a file for residence permits issued to EU citizens.
4 This is almost an Aliens Register.
5 EEA citizens are registered in a specific residence permit register but this is not compulsory.
6 Since 2005 this Aliens Register is included in the Central Population Register.
1
144
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
Comparative Table 5. Authorisation to stay more than three months for non-EEA citizens
Long-term visa or other
immigration status1
Duration of Condition of
validity
extension
Temporary residence
permit2
Long-term or permanent
residence permit3
Duration of
stay required Validity of
Validity of
to be eligible long-term
the first
for long- term residence
permit
permit
residence
permit
5 years
5 years
For family
reunification
CZ
Renewable;
After 1 year
convertible to
Up to 1 year
Up to 1 year4
a temporary
residence
permit
10 years
Permanent5
For family
reunification
of nationals
DK
Up to 2 years
7 years
Permanent
No
DE
Depends on
the grounds
Depends on
the grounds
Permanent
For high
skilled
migrants
EE6
3 years within
last 5 years
Between 1
with
Permanent
temporary
and 5 years
residence
permit
BE
Usually 1
year
Could it be a
first stay
permit?
No
EL
Between 6
months and 2
years
10 years
Permanent
For spouses
of a citizens
and ethnic
Greeks
ES
1 year
5 years
5 years
For family
reunification
FR
Up to 1 year
5 years (or 2
years for
family
purposes)
10 years
For spouses
of citizens
married since
2 years
IE
Up to 1 year
5 years
Permanent
No
IT
Up to 2 years
6 years
Permanent
For family
reunification
Between 1
and 4 years
Temporary
permit not
required for
long term
permit
Permanent
Yes
CY
145
T H E S I M
Long-term visa or other
immigration status1
Duration of Condition of
validity
extension
Temporary residence
permit2
Long-term or permanent
residence permit3
Duration of
stay required Validity of
Validity of
to be eligible long-term
the first
for long- term residence
permit
permit
residence
permit
Could it be a
first stay
permit?
LV6
Usually 1
year
10 years
Permanent
For ethnic
Latvians,
family
reunification
and former
non-citizens7
LT6
Up to 1 year
5 years
Permanent
For ethnic
Lithuanians
LU
Up to 1 year
3 years
5 years
No
Permanent5
No
Permanent
Yes
5 years
No
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
Convertible in
temporary
3 years since
residence
Up to 2 years the date of
Up to 1 year4
permit during
entry
the validity of
the visa
Temporary
Between 3
permit not
months and 3 required to
years
obtain longterm permit
1 year
Between 3
and 5 years
Renewable
but not
5 years of
Between 3 convertible to Usually up to temporary
Permanent
No
and 6 months temporary
1 year
residence
permit
residence
permit
5 years ( in
Convertible to
For family
specific cases
a temporary
Permanent5 reunification
Up to 2 years
Up to 1 year
between 2
residence
of repatriates8
and 10 years)
permit
Renewable
during 3 or 5
Between 5
and 8 years of
years, then
temporary
5 years
No
Up to 1 year convertible to
2 years
residence
a temporary
permit
residence
permit9
146
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
Long-term visa or other
immigration status1
Duration of Condition of
validity
extension
SI
SK
Temporary residence
permit2
Long-term or permanent
residence permit3
Duration of
stay required Validity of
Validity of
to be eligible long-term
the first
for long- term residence
permit
permit
residence
permit
8 years (or
Permanent5
less in
specific cases)
13 years (or
Up to 1 year less in specific Permanent5
cases)
Up to 1 year
Could it be a
first stay
permit?
No
No
FI
Usually 1
year
2 years
Permanent
No
SE
Up to 1 year
Between 2
years and 7
years
Permanent
For family
reunification
UK
Between 6 Convertible in
temporary
months and
Depends on
residence
10 years
the grounds
depending on permit at the
first renewal
grounds
Between 2
and 4 years
Permanent
For returnees
or family
reunification
1 Long-term visa and other immigration status refer to all kind of titles allowing the stay for more than 3
months that are not residence permits.
2 Temporary residence permits are generally the first permits granted (except for countries issuing longterm visas) and these are issued within the country (except in Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovak
Republic and, to a certain extent, in Finland).
3 Long-term residence permits are those with infinite duration of validity (i.e. permanent) or those, the
validity of which is at least 5 years, and are automatically renewable.
4 These visas are issued abroad but must be registered after arrival in the country.
5 In addition to this residence permit, foreigner receives an ID card the validity of which is 10 years.
6 In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a certain part of permanent residents since before the independence
and their children are citizens neither of their country of residence nor of any other country. They are
considered as non-citizens of this country and may receive a special aliens passport for identification and
travel purpose. These persons need a residence permit like other non EEA citizens in Estonia and
Lithuania while, in Latvia, these persons do not need such a residence permit.
7 When receiving the citizenship of another country, Latvian non-citizens loose their former status but
have the right to be granted a permanent residence permit as the first permit to stay.
8 A repatriate is a foreigner recognised as a person of Polish descent who, before the date of entry into
force of the Act on Repatriation, had been living permanently in the East and has come to Poland based
on an entry visa for repatriation. At the moment of crossing the Polish border, he/she acquires Polish
citizenship and the members of his/her closest family are granted long-term residence permit.
9 Except study visa that are not convertible in temporary residence permit.
147
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 6. Specific groups of non-EEA citizens included in the residence permit
database
BE
Asylum seekers
with pending
request
Refugees and other
persons with
protection status
Accompanying
minors
N1
Y
Y
CZ
N
Y
Y
DK
N
Y
N
DE
Y
Y
Y
EE
N
Y
EL
N
N
ES
Y
Y
FR
Y
Y
IE
N
Y
IT
Y
Y
Groups of non-EEA
citizens not
included
Ethnic Germans2
and some workers
Y
No, but mentioned
Ethnic Greeks3
on their parents' file
Yes, but sometimes
only mentioned on
their parents' file
No, but mentioned
on their parents' file
No, but mentioned Female spouses or
on their parents' file widows of citizens2
No, but mentioned
on their parents' file
Y
Ethnic Cypriots
CY
Y
Y
LV
N
Y
LT
N
Y
Y
LU
N
Y
Y
HU
N
N
Y
MT
N
Y
Y
Y
NL
Y
Y
Y
AT
N
N
Y
PL
Y
Y
Y
PT
Y
Y
Y
SI
N
Y
Y
SK
N
Y
Y
FI
Y
Y
Y
SE
Y
Y
Y
UK
N
Y
No, but mentioned
on their parents' file
Foreign dependant
of a Maltese citizen2
People with longterm visas3
People with longterm visas3
People with longterm visas3
Asylum seekers are in the Waiting Register which is a subset of the RN.
These persons do not need a residence permit.
3 These persons with long-term visas issued by consulates do not need a residence permit but they are
included in a specific database.
1
2
148
Chapter 4: Registration of Permit of Stay
Comparative Table 7. Transfer of information between the residence permit database and
the population registers1.
From population registers to residence permit database
PIN used in the
Self declared
population
emigration
register
From residence
permit database to
population
registers
Acquiring the
citizenship
of the country
Death
Validity of the
residence permit
CZ
Y
Y2
Y
Y
Y
DK
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
DE
N
Y
Y
Y
N
EE
Y
N
N
N
Y
ES
N
N
N
Y
N
IT
N
N
Y
Y
N
LU
N
N
N
N
N
HU
Y
Y3
Y
Y
Y
NL
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
AT
N
Y
Y
Y
N
PL
N
N
Y
N
N
SK
Y
Y3
Y
Y
Y
FI
N
N
Y
Y
N
SE
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Here are considered countries with population registers but only when the residence permit database is
not integrated in a more general population registration system (as in Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania and
Slovenia).
2 Only departures for permanent residence abroad must be declared to the Population Register and
information is thereafter transferred to the Aliens Register.
3 Only information about permanent permit holders is transmitted.
1
149
Chapter 5
Registration of the Asylum Seekers
Rob van der Erf, Liesbeth Heering and Ernst Spaan
Introduction
Since the 1980s, the European Union has been confronted with a new
type of international migration: asylum-seeking. As a consequence, EU MS
have legislated for asylum procedures and have taken steps to register or
record asylum flows. Despite the wide acceptance of the 1951 Geneva
Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 New York Protocol1,
national legislation, procedures and registration of the asylum process have
resulted in clear differences between the EU MS. At the EU level this
situation has increasingly been judged as undesirable. Therefore, various
attempts have been made to intensify international cooperation in the field
of asylum policy. The Union’s mandate to act on the asylum issue stems
from the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty which came into force in 1999. However,
so far, the European Commission has not achieved many of the goals set out
in the Treaty. EU MS have been reluctant to make significant changes to
their national laws and have managed to agree on relatively low minimum
standards (Niessen, 2004). This means that there is still a long way to go
before asylum policies in the European Union are truly harmonised.
This chapter aims to provide a broad outline of the current situation as
regards asylum procedures in the 25 EU MS in relation to asylum statistics.
For details of the procedures in each country, the reader is referred to the
country reports annexed to this volume. In order to better understand the
similarities and differences, a recommended typology of concepts and
definitions is presented first.
1 The 1967 New York protocol extended the Convention to refugees outside Europe and
eliminated the time constraints.
T H E S I M
1. Typology of concepts and definitions
The process followed by an asylum application starts with lodging the
first application and ends with either the issue of a permanent residence
permit or the return of the asylum seeker. This process is broader than the
solely judicial asylum procedure because other procedures may be involved
as well (e.g. relating to expulsion of rejected asylum seekers, and to nonasylum decisions, such as family reunion). The typology and concepts
described here are, therefore, not restricted solely to legal terminology.
The asylum process has a complex structure that varies widely between
the EU MS. This implies that for the purposes of this exercise, a general
model should disregard the country-specific differences in handling asylum
applications. As a result, such a model can only be a very simplified and
rough picture of the asylum process. Nevertheless, a general model may be a
useful instrument to name and define the different steps in the asylum
process.
In Figure 1 a general model of the asylum process is presented2. The
model starts with the ‘asylum application’, referring to all applications for
protection on an individual basis, irrespective of whether the applicant
lodged his or her application at a border or from inside the country, and
irrespective of whether the applicant entered the territory legally (e.g. as a
tourist) or illegally.
Figure 1. General model of the asylum process
Temporary
protection
Asylum
application
Positive
decision
Protection
Negative
decision
Other
Rejected
Other
Appeal
Permanent
2
Temporary
Departed
Unknown
Repeat
The concepts and definitions that are described derive from European Commission, 2003.
152
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
In deciding when to regard an asylum application as having been lodged,
the principles expressed in Article 2 of Decision 1/97 of the Dublin
Convention should be applied, i.e. “An application for asylum is regarded as
having been lodged from the moment the authorities of the EU MS
concerned have something in writing to that effect: either a form submitted
by the applicant or an official statement drawn up by the authorities. In the
event of a non-written application, the period between the statement of
intent and the drawing up of the official statement must be as short as
possible”.
In the ideal model, each application should refer to only one person, thus
eliminating the difference between applications and applicants. However, in
reality, in some countries applications are linked to principal applicants and
may therefore include several people (i.e. the principal applicant and his or
her family members).
The legislative background of asylum applications is provided by the
Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and
Other Forms of Cruel or Inhuman Treatment (UNCAT), the European
Convention on Human Rights, or other relevant instruments of protection,
according to national criteria for asylum applications. In the European
Union, various directives and regulations have been set out in the field of
international protection, e.g.
ƒ the ‘Amended proposal for a Council Directive on minimum
standards on procedure in EU MS for granting and with drawing
refugee status’, 29th April 2004 (COM(2002) 326 final/2)3;
ƒ the proposed Council Regulation 2004/83/EC of 29th April 2004 ‘on
minimum standards for the qualification of third-country nationals
or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need
international protection and the content of the protection granted’4;
ƒ the Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18th February 2003
“establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the EU
MS responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one
of the EU MS by a third-country national” (also known as Dublin II,
already in force and applied by all EU MS, except Denmark; see also
hereafter)5.
Asylum applications can be either first (new) applications or repeat
applications. Repeat applications have to be linked to the original
3 Council of the European Council, Inter-Institutional File: 2000/0238 (CNS), Brussels 30th April
2004.
4 Official Journal of the European Union, 30.9.2004.
5 Official Journal of the European Union, 25.2.2003.
153
T H E S I M
application and should not be considered as new (first) applications (see
below).
‘Temporary protection’ means an arrangement offering protection of a
temporary nature to people requesting international protection in the event
of a mass flight. The definition of temporary protection is based on the
definition agreed by the Commission for joint action for temporary
protection. People who get temporary protection are not counted as asylum
seekers. However, they may request asylum later.
All countries have some kind of ‘normal’ or ‘standard’ procedure in
order to determine whether an asylum request will be granted or not.
However, most countries start with some kind of preliminary procedure to
assess which requests are eligible for the normal procedure6. This
preliminary procedure may be an admissibility procedure and/or an
accelerated procedure. Most often, the criteria used in these procedures to
refuse or reject asylum claims are related to:
ƒ the concept of ‘manifestly unfounded’ requests, i.e. when it is
obvious that the applicant has no valid grounds for seeking asylum.
This includes, for example, fraudulent applications and applications
from people who might pose a serious threat to public order;
ƒ the Dublin Convention (known since 2003 as Dublin II) determining
the EU MS responsible for examining the asylum application. This
regulation introduced some changes to the original convention. For
example, a EU MS’s responsibility for an asylum-seeker who entered
EU territory illegally is now restricted to twelve months. Beyond that
period, if it is impossible to determine through which EU MS the
asylum seeker entered the EU, responsibility switches to the EU MS
where the person has stayed illegally for over five months.
Responsibility for examining an asylum application is attributed to a
EU MS on the basis of a series of criteria. In order of priority,
responsibility is attributed to (1) the EU MS where a member of the
family of the asylum seeker is already settled as a refugee; (2) the EU
MS which granted a stay permit to the asylum seeker; and (3) the EU
MS which granted a visa to the asylum seeker. The EU MS to which
such responsibility has been attributed must let the asylum seeker
enter its territory. It must process his or her application and if
necessary let the individual return if he or she has gone to another
EU MS without permission. For this purpose, the EU has created a
6
In order not to further complicate the model this distinction has been left out of Figure 1.
154
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
database called EURODAC to hold the finger prints of asylum
seekers (European Commission, 2002);
ƒ the concept of ‘safe third country’, when an applicant comes from a
non-EU country that is considered safe, where he or she could have
asked for asylum;
ƒ the concept of safe ‘country of origin’, when the applicant is a citizen
and/or inhabitant of a country that is considered to be safe.
Claims that are refused in the preliminary procedure must be included in
the number of applications and number of (negative) decisions. Because of
its special nature, the ‘Dublin reason’ for refusal should be separated from
the other reasons for refusal.
In the ‘normal’ asylum procedure a ‘positive decision’ may be taken on
protection grounds or on other grounds. In most countries two categories of
‘positive decisions’ on protection grounds are distinguished:
ƒ ‘Convention status granted’. This refers to decisions to grant refugee
status within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees of 28 July 1951, as amended by the
New York Protocol of 31st January 1967.
ƒ ‘Humanitarian status granted’ and all other types of subsidiary
protection equivalent to asylum. This refers only to asylum
applicants who have been granted some form of protection on
grounds other than those laid down in the 1951 Geneva Convention.
It includes people who have been granted protection under Article 3
of the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ or Article 3 of the
‘United Nations Convention Against Torture’, as well as those
granted protection on other humanitarian grounds. The rules on
complementary forms of protection differ between EU MS but
usually a favourable decision will result in a permit to reside in the
EU MS in question.
The category ‘positive decisions on other grounds’ in this ideal model,
includes all ‘statuses’ granted on non-protection grounds. Examples are
family reunion and family formation. Also included is permission to
stay/reside within the territory of a EU MS because the country of origin
refuses to take back the rejected asylum seeker. However, in reality, several
countries classify these cases as negative decisions. ‘Negative decisions’ can
be subdivided into two categories:
ƒ ‘Rejected’: The rejected category should cover all decisions rejecting
applications in which no status is granted. It is intended to cover
what might be described as outright refusals. Decisions to refuse an
applicant refugee status but to grant some other form of protection
155
T H E S I M
or permission to stay should be recorded in the ‘humanitarian status’
or ‘other’ categories.
ƒ ‘Other non-status decisions’: This refers to those decisions which are
defined neither as ‘rejections’ nor as ‘positive’ decisions. Examples
include, in some EU MS, withdrawal of applications, write-offs,
abandonment of cases, and any discontinuation of a claim that is not
included under positive decisions or rejected applications. The
category includes formal decisions as well as non-decisions (e.g., in
some states a withdrawal terminates a case, but is not counted as a
decision).
A positive decision does not mean, by definition, a permanent residence
permit. Such a decision may result in a temporary residence permit that has
to be renewed one or more times before it becomes permanent. However, if
the situation in the country of origin has changed drastically (for the good)
in the meantime, the temporary residence permit can be withdrawn. This
means that an a priori positive decision may be changed into an a posteriori
negative decision.
Depending on the legislative possibilities in a specific host country, an
applicant with a negative asylum decision may lodge an appeal with a
dedicated appeal body, ministry and/or court. This will lead to second,
third, etc. instance positive or negative decisions. Especially in the case of
repeat appeals it is often not possible to await the decision in the host
country.
If an asylum decision is negative (rejected or other) and no (further)
appeal is lodged, the follow-up can either be departed, repeat or unknown.
Three modes of departure are distinguished by the European Union
Centre for Information, Discussion and Exchange on the Crossing of
Frontiers and Immigration (CIREFI; see European Commission, 2003):
ƒ implemented departures (return is effected to the country of origin
or a third, non-EU, country);
ƒ escorted departures (the returnee is escorted to another country);
ƒ supervised departures (the returnee’s departure is checked before he
or she leaves the territory, usually at the border).
A special mode of departure, i.e. transfer to another EU MS under the
Dublin Convention, should be considered separately from the preceding
three.
If this is allowed in the country’s specific legislation, there is a possibility
for rejected applicants to submit a repeat application. Generally, this option
is valid only when, during the asylum process, the situation in the country
of origin has worsened to a degree that allows the application to be renewed.
156
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
Repeat applications must be linked to the original application, and should
not be seen as new (first) applications.
The category ‘unknown’ is used for rejected applicants without either an
address (disappeared) or confirmation of departure. In principle, this should
be a temporary status; ultimately it has to be clear what happened to the
applicant: he or she either returned, lodged an appeal, or submitted a repeat
application.
The asylum process is considered to be definitively closed when either a
permanent residence permit has been granted or the asylum applicant has
definitely left the country.
2. Registration of asylum procedures
2.1 Responsible authorities
Comparative Table 8 shows that there is great variation between EU MS
in the type of authorities that deals with asylum matters. Apart from Greece
(Ministry of Public Order) and Luxembourg (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Immigration), all EU MS have established special bodies for, among other
things, processing and registering requests for asylum. The Commissioner
General for Refugees and Stateless Persons in Belgium and the Migration
Board in Sweden are the only authorities that are not directly responsible to
a ministry. Most other special bodies are under the responsibility of the
Ministry of the Interior (or ministries with more or less the same function,
such as Internal Affairs in Luxembourg and the Home Office in the United
Kingdom). Exceptions are Denmark (Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and
Integration Affairs), France (Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ireland (Ministry
of Justice, Equality and Law Reform), Malta (Ministry for Justice and Home
Affairs), the Netherlands (Ministry of Justice) and Portugal (Ministry of
Internal Administration). Generally, the authorities dealing with asylum
matters have a great deal of independence.
With regard to responsibilities, in ten countries (Belgium, Spain, France,
Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Austria and Slovenia) the authority in
charge of asylum and refugees focuses specifically on this area. In the
remaining countries the responsibilities are broader and also include, for
example, migration and citizenship.
157
T H E S I M
2.2 Database
Comparative Table 8 shows that most EU MS store the information on
asylum applicants and asylum decisions in a dedicated database. The
remaining seven countries (Denmark, Germany, Cyprus, Netherlands,
Poland, Finland and Sweden) make use of a more extensive database, which
also includes information on, for example, the legal international migrants.
A common shortcoming of asylum databases is that they contain only the
information for which the authority is itself responsible. This implies that
decisions outside the scope of the asylum authority, in particular appeal and
non-status decisions, might not be included. In order to be able to give a
comprehensive picture of the asylum process, it is recommended that this
kind of information be integrated into the database.
2.3 Procedures
Comparative Table 9 summarises the main characteristics of the asylum
procedures in the 25 EU MS.
Preliminary and normal procedures
The criteria used in the preliminary procedures to refuse or reject asylum
claims are usually related to
ƒ the concept of ‘manifestly unfounded’ requests;
ƒ the ‘Dublin II Regulation’;
ƒ the concept of ‘safe third country’;
ƒ the concept of safe ‘country of origin’.
In thirteen EU MS the preliminary procedure appears to consist only of
an accelerated procedure; in three countries it is only an admissibility
procedure; and in the remaining seven countries it is a mix of these
procedures. In the first and second group all of the above-mentioned criteria
are generally applied to determine whether a request is eligible for
processing in the normal procedure. For the countries with both an
admissibility and an accelerated procedure, the criteria depend on the kind
of procedure. In Luxembourg and the United Kingdom the admissibility
decision focuses on ‘Dublin II’ and the accelerated procedure on the other
criteria. Germany applies the admissibility procedure to border applicants
only and tests for ‘safe third country’ or ‘safe country of origin’, whereas the
accelerated procedure is applied to all applicants using all the criteria. For
admissibility, the situation is almost identical in France and Italy, the only
difference being that France and Italy apply the ‘manifestly unfounded’ test
158
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
to border applicants, whereas Germany does not. The accelerated procedure
covers all the criteria in France, but is limited to ‘Dublin II’ in Italy. Finally,
Denmark and Slovenia use the ‘safe third country’ and ‘Dublin II’ criteria in
their admissibility procedures, and apply an accelerated procedure to
‘manifestly unfounded’ claims7.
During the asylum procedure, asylum seekers do not generally receive a
(temporary) residence permit, but are given some other document that
allows them to stay in the host country.
Positive and negative decisions
All but two EU MS are able to grant genuine Geneva Convention status
explicitly. The two exceptions are Germany and the Netherlands, which
recently decided to limit the number of statuses to one, i.e. a temporary
residence that has to be renewed annually with the possibility of obtaining a
residence permit for an indefinite period after three (Germany) or five years
(the Netherlands). This status implicitly includes Geneva Convention status.
On the other hand, three countries have extended the Convention status:
France and the Slovak Republic with a ‘constitutional asylum status’ and
Spain with a ‘displaced status’8.
In a considerable number of countries (Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain,
France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Poland and Finland), Convention status
does not automatically qualify a person for a permanent residence permit.
As in Germany and the Netherlands, these countries grant a renewable
temporary residence permit that may be converted into a permanent
residence permit after a fixed period. In some countries (e.g. France) this
conversion takes place automatically, while in others (e.g. Netherlands) the
temporary residence permit may be withdrawn if circumstances in the
country of origin have obviously improved within its period of validity.
For applicants who are considered not to meet the Convention criteria,
there are alternative ways of staying in EU MS, although often with fewer
rights and for a limited period of time only. The umbrella term ‘subsidiary
protection’ is given to alternative permission to remain, when it is seen as a
positive result of the asylum procedure. If the alternative right to remain is
seen as a negative result of the asylum procedure, the additional phrase
‘without order to leave’ is used in Comparative Table 9. In practice, the
distinction between ‘subsidiary protection’ and ‘without order to leave’ is
7 It is assumed that all new EU MS have already included or will soon include the ‘Dublin II’
criterion in their asylum procedures.
8 For more details see the country reports.
159
T H E S I M
not always clear. Both concepts may include various protection (when it
would be irresponsible to send the applicant back to his or her home
country, e.g. according to the non-refoulement principle laid down in the
Geneva Convention) and humanitarian (e.g. family ties, grave illness, etc.)
grounds. Probably due to this vague distinction, several countries offer only
one of the two possible alternatives. Only subsidiary protection is offered by
eleven countries (Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Latvia, Lithuania,
Malta, Portugal, Finland and Sweden), while seven countries (Czech
Republic, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Austria, and Poland) only offer
the ‘without order to leave’ protection. However both statuses are possible
in seven countries (Denmark, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovak Republic and
the United Kingdom, as well as Germany and the Netherlands). The last two
countries are included here because subsidiary protection is supposed to be
part of the one and only positive status.
The difference between subsidiary protection status and without order to
leave status is assumed to be small for the (eighteen) countries that offer just
one of these possible statuses. However, for the remaining (seven) countries
subsidiary protection is thought to imply a much better position, in terms of
rights and possible prolongation of the residence permit.
The impact of the distinction on the international comparison of
recognition rates is considerable, since ‘subsidiary protection’ is counted as a
positive result of the asylum procedure and ‘without order to leave’ as a
negative one. This means that the recognition rate of countries offering only
the former status is systematically higher than that of countries offering only
the latter status. As a consequence, the Austrian recognition rate should not
be unthinkingly compared with, for example, the Belgian one. Quite apart
from all the other pitfalls linked to the calculation of recognition rates (e.g.
double counting resulting from appeal procedures), the international
comparison of these rates is a difficult job that requires expert knowledge of
the field.
Appeal possibilities
Finally, a few remarks about the possibility of appealing. The last column
in Comparative Table 9 shows that in all but two countries it is possible to
appeal against a negative decision in both the preliminary and normal
procedure. Beneath this apparent similarity, however, there is a huge
variation between. There are differences with respect to the number of
different authorities involved, the kind of appeal body, the period in which
an appeal can be lodged, the period in which the competent authority has to
decide, and the presence or absence of the right to await the appeal decision
160
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
in the host country. Given this wide variety, it is beyond the scope of this
chapter to discuss the similarities and differences in detail. Only some
general observations will be made here.
The number of successive appeal bodies varies from none (applicants
refused in the preliminary procedure in Denmark) to three (for example, in
the United Kingdom) with:
ƒ the Immigration Appeal Adjudicator;
ƒ the Immigration Appeals Tribunal;
ƒ the High Court).
The first appeal authority may be:
ƒ the first-instance decision maker;
ƒ a dedicated appeal body;
ƒ a general appeal body, i.e. some kind of court.
Generally, applicants in both the preliminary procedure and the normal
procedure are entitled to await the decision of the first appeal in the host
country, although sometimes permission has to be granted explicitly (e.g. in
Spain). Evidently, appeal decisions relating to the preliminary procedure are
taken much faster than those relating to the normal procedure.
With a few exceptions, the subsequent appeal authorities are some kind
of general court (e.g. regional court, district court, High Court, Council of
State). Appeals to the High Court and Council of State (judicial review) only
determine the legality of the procedure followed. Applicants awaiting a
subsequent appeal decision are not normally automatically entitled to stay
in the host country.
The appeal procedure in Denmark is significantly different from that in
all other EU MS, in the sense that all negative first-instance decisions in the
normal procedure are automatically transferred to the Refugee Appeals
Board. The second-instance decisions of this board are final.
Conclusion
Reviewing the current state of affairs with regard to the asylum process
in the 25 EU MS it can be stated that, while there are harmonising trends,
there is still a long way to go before national asylum practices are fully
harmonised at EU level.
Harmonising trends
Harmonisation of the asylum process has been substantially promoted by
measures taken by the EU. By the end of 2003, a large part of the
161
T H E S I M
Community measures called for in the Amsterdam Treaty had been adopted
(see Chapter 1 for further details):
ƒ the criteria and mechanisms for determining which EU MS is
responsible for considering an application for asylum;
ƒ minimum standards on the reception of asylum seekers in the EU
MS;
ƒ minimum standards with respect to the qualification of nationals of
non-member countries as refugees and the criteria for awarding
refugee and subsidiary protection status;
ƒ minimum standards on procedures in EU MS for granting or
withdrawing refugee status;
ƒ minimum standards for giving temporary protection;
ƒ promoting a balance of efforts between EU MS in receiving and
bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced
persons.
Partly due to measures such as these, countries have made serious efforts
to regulate their asylum procedures through specific asylum laws or parts of
more general laws (e.g. alien laws). Within this framework more or less
dedicated bodies have been appointed to deal with the reception of asylum
seekers and decision-making issues. The same is true for the registration of
asylum applications and asylum decisions in specific or more general
databases.
Almost all countries now have some kind of preliminary procedure
(preceding the normal asylum procedure) to examine whether a request is
eligible for processing. Within this preliminary procedure the same criteria
are generally used to refuse a request, i.e. ‘manifestly unfounded’, ‘safe third
country’, ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘Dublin II’.
Apart from Germany and the Netherlands, all countries can grant
genuine Geneva Convention status explicitly. In addition to Convention
status, all countries can offer asylum applicants alternative statuses which
allow them to remain in the country on a temporary basis.
Refused or rejected applicants are able to appeal against the negative
decision in practically all countries. Sometimes, several levels of appeal are
possible.
Still a long way to go
Although more or less the same criteria are being used to refuse or reject
an asylum request, the meaning and structure of the preliminary asylum
procedure differ a great deal between EU MS. The distinction made in this
chapter between the admissibility procedure and the accelerated procedure
162
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
may easily lead to misunderstandings in the sense that lodging an
application may be the starting point of the asylum process in one country,
whereas processing the application is the starting point in another country.
Better coordination of the preliminary procedures is necessary, taking into
account all asylum requests (i.e. covering everybody who applies for
protection, irrespective of whether the application is lodged at the border or
inside the country, and irrespective of whether the country was entered
legally (e.g. as a tourist) or illegally). Moreover, repeat applications should
be linked to initial applications instead of being treated as new applications.
From a socio-demographic point of view the description of the asylum
process should refer to applicants instead of applications. Hence, a family
asking for asylum should be seen as several applicants (i.e. the principal
applicant and accompanying partner and/or minor children). It is debatable,
however, how births and reunified family members should be dealt with. In
order to limit the asylum process to the original applicants, it might be better
not to include them. In any case, there is a need for these topics to be
addressed so that current differences between EU MS can be removed.
A positive outcome to the asylum procedure is defined differently in
different countries. Some consider Geneva Convention status the one and
only positive status, while other countries also include forms of subsidiary
protection. It is self-evident that misleading conclusions may be drawn
when comparing countries with different definitions of a positive result. In
order to improve the international comparability, it is recommended that a
positive decision be defined as one that leads to any kind of residence
permit. Because of the nature of residence permits, initial decisions will often
be provisional. They become final at the moment that a permanent residence
permit is granted.
Appeal procedures against a negative asylum decision appear to exist in
all shapes and sizes. However, some countries offer fewer appeal
possibilities than others. In this respect more harmonisation is needed. With
regard to other aspects of the appeal procedures, the right to await a
decision in the host country should be given closer consideration.
A common shortcoming of a database maintained by the body dealing
with the asylum application is that it contains only the information that this
body is responsible for. This means that relevant information outside the
scope of the asylum authority might be missing, in particular appeal and
non-status decisions. The same often holds true for information on the final
outcome of the asylum process, i.e. the effected return. In order to be able to
give a comprehensive picture of the asylum process, this ‘outside’
information must be integrated into the asylum database.
163
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 8. Responsible authorities for the processing and registration of
asylum requests with type of database1
Responsible authority
Ministry
Commissioner General for Refugees and
Stateless Persons
Department of Asylum and Migration
Policies
BE
CZ
DK
2
Interior
Refugee, Immigration and
Integration Affairs
Interior
Interior
Danish Immigration Service
DE Federal Office for Migration and Refugees
EE
Citizenship and Migration Board
EL
Ministry of Public Order
ES
Office for Asylum and Refuge
French Office for the Protection of
FR
Refugees and Stateless Persons
The Refugee Applications Commissioner
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
Central Commission for the Recognition
of Refugee Status
Migration Department
Refugee Affairs Department of the Office
of Citizenship and Migration Affairs
Migration Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Immigration
Immigration and Nationality Office
Office of the Commissioner for Refugees
Immigration and Naturalisation Service
Federal Asylum Office
Office for Repatriation and Aliens
Asylum and Refugee Department
Directorate for Migration, Sector for
Asylum
Migration Office
Directorate of Immigration
Migration Board
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Database
dedicated
dedicated
extended
Interior
extended
dedicated
dedicated
dedicated
Foreign Affairs
dedicated
Justice, Equality and Law
Reform
dedicated
Interior
dedicated
Interior
extended
Interior
dedicated
Internal Affairs
dedicated
dedicated
Interior
Justice and Home Affairs
Justice
Interior
Interior and Administration
Internal Administration
dedicated
dedicated
extended
dedicated
extended
dedicated
Interior
dedicated
Interior
Interior
dedicated
extended
extended
dedicated
3
Home Office
Where several authorities are involved, only the main one is mentioned. A dedicated database covers
asylum issues only, whereas an extended database also includes other data, e.g. on legal international
migrants.
2 The Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons reports directly to the central
government.
3 The Swedish Migration Board is an independent body, but is related to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
1
164
Chapter 5. Registration of the Asylum Seekers
Comparative Table 9. The asylum procedure and possible outcomes
Preliminary procedure1
BE
Positive outcome
Admissibility
Convention Subsidiary
Accelerated
status
protection4
x6
x
CZ
DK
x
DE
x9
7
x6
x
x
x
8
x
x
x10
EE
x6
EL
x
ES
x6
x
x
x
x
FR
12
IE
IT
x
CY
x
12
6
x
n
x
pn
x
pn
x
x
pn
x11
x
pn
13
pn
x 14
x
x
n
x
x
x
pn
x
pn
15
x
6
x6
x
x
LT
x
6
x
x
x16
x
x
HU
x6
x
MT
x
x
NL
x6
x15
pn
x
LV
LU
pn
x
x6
6
Other3
Negative
without order Appeal2
to leave5
6
pn
pn
x
pn
x
pn
x
pn
x17
x
pn
AT
x
6
x
x
pn
PL
x6
x
x
pn
PT
x6
SI
x
x
pn
x
x
x
pn
x6
x13
x
x
pn
FI
x
6
x
x
SE
x
14
x
x
x18
x
x
UK
x15
x
x
SK
7
8
pn
n
x
pn
1 The preliminary procedure precedes the normal procedure and may relate to an admissibility
procedure and/or some kind of accelerated procedure.
2 Possibility of appealing against a negative outcome to the preliminary procedure (p) and/or the normal
procedure (n).
3 Limited to asylum-related decisions. Positive non-asylum decisions (e.g. family reunion) are not
included.
4 In a broad sense, including humanitarian grounds, protection status, etc.
5 The decision ‘negative outcome with order to leave’ exists in all countries.
165
T H E S I M
6 According to the ‘manifestly unfounded claim’, ‘safe country of origin’, ‘safe third country’, and
‘Dublin II’ criteria. In Spain, the ‘safe third country’ concept is usually applied only in association with
other reasons.
7 According to ‘safe third country’ and ‘Dublin II’ criteria.
8 According to the ‘manifestly unfounded’ criterion.
9 To asylum applicants at the border, according to the ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘safe third country’
criteria.
10 Recognition on the basis of the Basic Law is more important than recognition under the Geneva
Convention. Both types of refugees received a temporary residence permit for three years, including the
right to work.
11 As well as Convention status, there is a ‘displaced’ status.
12 To asylum applicants at the border only, according to the ‘manifestly unfounded claim’, ‘safe country
of origin’, and ‘safe third country’ criteria.
13 As well as Convention status there is a ‘constitutional asylum’ status.
14 In general all applications are treated on the same basis, but in certain conditions faster procedures are
followed.
15 According to ‘Dublin II’. In Luxembourg and the United Kingdom there is no official admissibility
procedure.
16 According to the ‘manifestly unfounded claim’, ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘safe third country’ criteria.
17 Only one status: temporary residence permit for five years, including the right to work.
18 So-called fast track procedures for unfounded claims, presumably according to the ‘manifestly
unfounded claim’, ‘safe country of origin’ and ‘safe third country’ criteria.
166
Chapter 6
Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the process of acquiring citizenship in EU MS. It
aims to compare the procedures and existing recording systems in order to
consider to what extent they allow comparable statistics on this topic to be
produced.
At first, we set out the basic definitions used in this chapter. Then we
present a typology of the modes of acquiring citizenship and the
corresponding procedures. This is followed by a comparative analysis which
focuses on the main ways of acquiring citizenship in different countries,
with reference to the necessary requirements and procedures and the
process of registering cases.
1. Definitions
1.1 Citizenship and nationality
Basically, citizenship is the status of being a citizen; nationality is the
status or quality of being national, or strongly attached to a nation. Even if
the two words are often synonymous nowadays (because of the
predominance of the concept of ‘nation-state’) they should be distinguished.
More precisely, citizenship is membership of a political community with its
corresponding rights and duties (notably the right to political participation).
Nationality is the quality of belonging to a nation in the sense of a group
united by various strong ties (common customs, cultures, traditions, history
and/or language).
Since, in a legal context, nationality also refers to the attachment to a state
by a tie of allegiance, the meanings of the words ‘citizens’ and ‘nationals’ are
often identical. However, nationals belong to a nation state but they may not
have all the rights linked with citizenship (voting for example). In fact
specific categories of nationals are, or have been, excluded from certain
T H E S I M
rights in some countries: minors, mentally handicapped persons, members
of some minorities and, until recently, women. However citizens have the
right to participate fully in the political life of the state of which they are a
citizen (Martiniello, 1999; Marshall and Bottomore, 1992).
In Latvia, there is a special category of people (the non-citizens of Latvia),
whose legal status is determined by a special law and who are considered
neither as Latvian citizens nor as foreigners. The non-citizens of Latvia are
people who have had a registered address in Latvia since before 1st July
1992, who do not hold Latvian citizenship because they do not fulfil the
required criteria or do not wish to apply, who do not have citizenship of any
other country and who have applied for Latvian non-citizen status. Noncitizens’ passports are issued to them.
1.2 Acquisition, naturalisation, attribution and transmission
In this chapter, the concept of acquisition refers to the broad process
allowing somebody who becomes a citizen of the concerned country,
whatever the procedure. For the same reason, the widely used word
‘naturalisation’ refers here to the mode of acquisition of citizenship after
birth that requires an application and a decision of the state. The word
‘attribution’ refers to methods of acquisition of citizenship that do not
require an application. The word ‘transmission’ will be limited to people
obtaining citizenship by descent from a citizen.
2. Principles for acquiring citizenship
There are two main grounds for the acquisition of citizenship, ius soli and
ius sanguinis. Ius soli refers to acquisition due to place of birth, i.e. being born
within the current or past territory of the country in question. Ius sanguinis
refers to the bloodline, i.e. having a parent or other ancestor who is a citizen
of the country.
In a closed population where everybody lived in their own country, ius
sanguinis or ius soli would be identical, as the same people would be
concerned and both would have the same judicial effect. It is difficult to find
countries where only one of these two principles is (or indeed was)
exclusively adopted, because most countries mix ius sanguinis and ius soli.
Starting from these two principles, ius soli has been somewhat extended to
cover situations where a person has resided for a number of years within the
national borders and has created a significant tie with the country regardless
of his or her country of birth. On the other hand, ius sanguinis has been
extended both vertically (to direct descendants, adopted or acknowledged
168
Chapter 6: Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
children, and to common origin or ethnic affiliation) and horizontally (to
foreign spouses of citizens) (Weil, 2001).
Laws on the acquisition, as well as the retention or loss, of citizenship
have long been considered a sovereign prerogative of states. However, as
the concept of citizenship extends beyond national boundaries, the legal
definition has progressively moved towards a harmonisation of national
rules under the international umbrella and with the adoption of multilateral
treaties. The right to citizenship has gradually been recognised as a human
right, and not merely as a positive formulation of the duty of states to avoid
statelessness. Citizenship laws have recently been significantly adapted in
almost all twenty-five states of the EU. In the 15 EU MS, this evolution has
been largely due to a concern over the integration of long-term migrants; in
the ten ‘new’ states the changes have been due to the nation-building
process as they emerge from their old regimes with limited jurisprudence.
In general, these evolutionary processes in EU MS have not yet been
completed and are continually changing. For example, a referendum held in
June 2004 in Ireland repealed the long-standing principle of ius soli which
automatically granted citizenship to all children born in the country.
3. A typology of the acquisition of citizenship
3.1 Modes of acuisition
There are several different bases for granting, attributing or transmitting
citizenship, and many different conditions are required and different
administrative and registration procedures are in place in different
countries. In trying to establish a conceptual framework of modes of
acquisition of citizenship, a first distinction may be made between
acquisition at birth and acquisition later in life. The latter may be further
subdivided into acquisition based on birth and acquisition for another
reason (usually protracted residence and integration in a country).
Moving beyond this basic distinction, regardless of the national
classifications presented in the THESIM country reports, which differ
significantly, we may adopt the classification preliminarily established by
NATAC1. NATAC is an EU-funded project aiming at comparing the
1 The full title of NATAC is ‘The acquisition of nationality in EU MS: rules, practices and
quantitative developments’. The Project is funded under the 6th Framework Programme,
coordinated by the Institute for European Integration Research of the Austrian Academy of
Science, and carried out by the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy Research (Austria),
169
T H E S I M
provisions for the acquisition of citizenship in the 15 EU MS (Institute for
European Integration Research/European Centre for Social Welfare Policy
and Research, 2005a; 2005b).
At a first, general, level, a common distinction between different ways of
acquiring citizenship is between acquisition based on birth (either occurring
at the moment of birth or later in life) and acquisition for other reasons.
According to NATAC, the distinction may be illustrated by the three
following cases (Institute for European Integration Research/European
Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, 2005b).
Birthright-based modes of acquisition of citizenship at birth
Citizenship of a country is generally accorded at birth to the children of
citizens, regardless of where the birth occurs (ius sanguinis at birth). Thus in
Denmark, for instance, any child born to a Danish parent in Denmark is
automatically granted citizenship; if the birth occurs abroad and out of
wedlock then only children of Danish mothers automatically acquire Danish
citizenship. Elsewhere, and often simultaneously, citizenship is recognised
at birth for babies born in the country’s territory (ius soli at birth), sometimes
depending on the citizenship of the parents or their length of residence in
the country.
With the aim of avoiding statelessness, provisions for the acquisition of
citizenship generally include the application of the ius soli principle to
newborn children who would otherwise be stateless. Children whose
parents are stateless, of unknown citizenship or who are unable to transmit
their citizenship to their children are thus granted the citizenship of their
country of birth, provided there are no reasons to impede this (e.g. the
application of the ius sanguinis principle because of the citizenship of the
second parent). The same occurs with children of unknown parents and
those found abandoned in the country’s territory. All these cases are classed
together, as acquisition by foundling, person with unclear nationality or
person who would otherwise be stateless.
Birthright-based modes of acquisition of citizenship after birth
After birth, citizenship may still be acquired because of the birth (i.e.
because of birth to parents who were citizens of the country at the time, or
the Centre for Migration Law of the Catholic University of Nijmegen (the Netherlands) and the
Danish Institute for Human Rights (Denmark) (http://www.eif.oeaw.ac.at).
170
Chapter 6: Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
because the birth occurred in the country). Specific conditions regulate these
acquisitions. For instance, a child born abroad may acquire the country’s
citizenship many years after birth because of the citizenship of his or her
parents (ius sanguinis after birth). On the other hand, a child born in a
country to foreign parents may be granted the citizenship, up to a certain
age, if he or she has resided in the country either from birth or later (ius soli
after birth). The principle of ius soli occurring at the moment of birth or later
defines the acquisition of citizenship by second and third generations of
immigrants.
Other modes of acquisition of citizenship after birth
The main mode of acquisition of citizenship after birth is an individual
application by a foreigner, who has been resident in the territory for some
time, is well integrated into society and intends to stay. Other frequent
reasons are marriage to a citizen, adoption, acknowledgment, descent from a
citizen, belonging to a particular group or country of citizenship, and
relationship to a head of family applying for citizenship (extension of
acquisition of citizenship). Many other reasons apply less frequently, such as
honorific motives, the provision of special services to a country and the
reacquisition of citizenship. This last normally applies to people who had
previously lost their citizenship when they acquired another, either because
dual citizenship was or is not allowed in at least one of the countries
concerned or because of war, forced deportation or border changes.
In NATAC these other ways of acquiring citizenship are grouped into
four main categories:
ƒ The first category includes the classical modes based on residence,
i.e. the acquisition of citizenship is not targeted at any special group,
but applies to adults who have resided in the country for a
prolonged period (ordinary acquisition through naturalisation) or
young people gaining the age of majority after having been brought
up in the country. According to the terminology developed by
NATAC, naturalisation is any mode of acquisition, after birth, of a
citizenship previously not held by the person concerned and
requiring an application by this person or his or her legal agent. This
definition corresponds to the common use of the term. ‘Ordinary
acquisition through naturalisation’ is introduced by NATAC to
denote the main mode of acquisition of citizenship not targeted at
any special group (Institute for European Integration
Research/European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research,
2005a).
171
T H E S I M
ƒ Modes based on family relationships refers to the transfer of
citizenship, or extension of the acquisition of citizenship, to spouses,
natural or adopted children and other relatives of people who are
already citizens of the country or who are applying jointly for
citizenship through a single procedure2.
ƒ Modes based on affinity relates to the acquisition of citizenship by
people who were formerly citizens, and by people of specific
citizenship or others with some affinity and connection to the
country (due to ethnicity, language, religion and/or other links,
including having acted in good faith as a citizen of the country for a
given period of time).
ƒ Finally, other targeted modes groups together the acquisition of
citizenship by people with special status (such as stateless people
and refugees), by people who have offered special services to the
country, and any other remaining cases.
3.2 Procedures for the acquisition of citizenship
There are three main procedures for acquiring citizenship (Institute for
European Integration Research/European Centre for Social Welfare Policy
and Research, 2005b; Bisogno & Gallo, 1999), i.e.:
ƒ automatic acquisition;
ƒ voluntary acquisition, upon expression of interest and following a
simplified procedure;
ƒ voluntary acquisition, upon application submitted to a discretionary
decision.
In the first procedure, citizenship is acquired automatically, through
attribution, normally without the presence of the person concerned (or
anyone acting on his or her behalf) and without the submission of a request.
Acquisition of citizenship by people such as adopted or acknowledged
minors is the final result of a simple administrative procedure; some
countries do not even consider this to be the acquisition of citizenship.
Citizenship acquired through birth abroad is subject to registration of the
newborn at an embassy or consulate, in a specific register of births abroad,
in the central register of the country concerned or in a civil register. It may
be useful to mention that citizenship is not always officially recognised
through an administrative act or the inclusion of new citizens in a register. It
may be granted, for instance, by issuing a passport.
2 The extension of acquisition of citizenship, by granting citizenship to people linked to an
independent applicant, is often called co-naturalisation.
172
Chapter 6: Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
In the second procedure, however, the person concerned must express an
interest or apply for citizenship, thus manifesting an explicit wish to become
a citizen. Citizenship is acknowledged when objective requirements are met,
and there is very little if any room for national authorities to exercise
discretionary powers. Terms such as a declaration, notification, registration
or conferment of citizenship are used to denote such cases. The ‘option
model’ (i.e. the possibility or requirement that a person choose between two
[or more] citizenships at a given age by means of a declaration) is included
in this category.
In the third procedure the person concerned must submit an application
but, unlike the previous case, citizenship is granted by a discretionary
decision by the relevant authority after a verification process normally
involving several national authorities, including the diplomatic
representatives of the country abroad. This procedure is open to appeal in
the case of a negative decision at first instance.
In conclusion, in the framework of THESIM, we will exclude the
acquisition of citizenship at birth when describing the differences between
EU MS. Acquisition at birth is irrelevant to the EU Regulation as it does not
involve changing from one citizenship to another, acquiring an additional
citizenship or any of the more specific modes of acquisition. More precisely,
we will consider the following ten main categories (adapted from level three
of the NATAC classification):
ƒ ius soli at birth for second- and third-generation immigrants;
ƒ ius sanguinis after birth;
ƒ ius soli after birth for second-generation immigrants;
ƒ ordinary acquisition through naturalisation;
ƒ transfer of citizenship to spouses of citizens;
ƒ transfer of citizenship to adopted children (minors and adults);
ƒ transfer of citizenship to children and/or relatives of former or
deceased citizens;
ƒ extension of acquisition of citizenship to spouses, children and/or
other relatives (such as acknowledged children);
ƒ re-acquisition of citizenship;
ƒ acquisition of citizenship based on cultural affinity due to ethnicity,
mother tongue, and/or religion.
3.3 The main differences between EU MS
Despite some agreements between countries there are continuing
differences between EU MS in the modes, requirements and procedures for
the acquisition or citizenship (as partially demonstrated by the length and
173
T H E S I M
variety of the classification above). In fact, for the same mode of acquisition,
the necessary conditions – more or less burdensome – and the procedural
aspects – more or less complex or long – contribute to differences in the
access to citizenship and the profile of each country. The possibility of
retaining a previous citizenship while acquiring a new one is, of course,
relevant. This is usually when people opt to retain their attachment to their
country of origin.
Generally speaking, it is possible to identify two main groups of
countries. The first group, the fifteen countries which were members of the
EU before 2004, is more unified in the interpretation and application of the
various definitions and procedures. Acquisition of citizenship by second- or
third-generation immigrants through ius soli at birth or later exists almost
solely in this group. There are close similarities between Belgium and
France, Germany and Austria, and the Nordic countries, in both definitions
and procedures. In the second group, the Central and Eastern European
countries, most acquisitions of citizenship are by naturalisation rather than
by transfer of citizenship or extension of acquisition.
More precisely, citizenship is granted by ius soli at birth to new-borns
having at least one foreign parent also born in the country in Belgium, Spain
and France. In Malta this applies to the children of former Maltese emigrants
returning as citizens of another country3. In the Netherlands ius soli at birth
is granted to children of non-nationals with habitual residence in the
Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles or Aruba who were also born in one of
those countries (i.e. the third generation of immigrants). In Germany,
Portugal, Ireland and the United Kingdom citizenship is granted at birth to
children born in their territories on the basis of a variety of previous
residence requirements.
Ius sanguinis after birth applies in two-thirds of EU MS, mostly through
an expression of interest and simplified procedures. However the
procedures and conditions differ greatly.
The principle of ius soli after birth generally depends on prolonged legal
residence, either uninterrupted since birth (e.g. in Italy, where an expression
of interest must be lodged between the ages of eighteen and nineteen), or
accumulated since a given age (e.g. in France, where different procedures
apply depending on the circumstances). Citizenship is acquired through an
expression of interest and simplified procedures. Among the few exceptions,
people born in Spain can acquire citizenship after one year of legal, uninter-
3
This mode of acquisition of citizenship is said to be based on double ius soli.
174
Chapter 6: Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
rupted residence immediately prior to application (providing other specific
conditions are met) following a discretionary decision4.
Despite a few differences in the practical steps and the overall duration of
the process, the procedures for the ordinary acquisition of citizenship
through naturalisation, are similar among countries, with the application for
citizenship being decided on a discretionary basis by the national authority.
Exceptions occur in Belgium (where a declaration of citizenship is possible
for people aged eighteen or over who have had their main residence in the
country for at least seven years and who hold an unlimited residence
permit), Germany and Austria (where there is a legal entitlement, depending
on an unlimited or special residence permit respectively, and on a very long
previous residence) and the Netherlands (where people over sixty-five can
be naturalised by declaration if they have been legally and usually resident
in the country for at least fifteen years). The requirements for ordinary
acquisition by naturalisation determine the accessibility of citizenship in the
various countries more than the procedures. Although constraints may arise
from other requirements, one of the main issues is previous residence. In
many countries the required length of previous residence has recently been
significantly reduced. Although there is some convergence on five to ten
years it is still possible to identify varying situations5.
Transfer of citizenship to foreign spouses applies in eleven countries:
Belgium, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland,
Portugal and the United Kingdom. Except in Spain, Italy and Poland,
citizenship for spouses is obtainable through a facilitated procedure. In most
countries where there are no specific provisions for the acquisition of
This is another example of cases in the classification which might be controversial, in the sense
that it could be considered as acquisition based on residence with exceptional conditions (i.e.
birth in the country).
5 A period of five years is established in twelve countries. However in Latvia this period must
be continuous and in Ireland, Cyprus and the United Kingdom there are additional
specifications. Belgium, with three years, is an exception, but elsewhere five years (either
continuously or accumulated) is the minimum duration. Intermediate durations apply in some
countries: five years plus one from application in Estonia, six years continuously (or eight years
accumulated) in Finland and Germany, and eight to nine years in Hungary and Denmark.
Finally, a number of countries demand ten years’ residence (ten out of the twelve years before
the application in Greece, ten years continuously in Austria, and a cumulative total of ten years
in five other countries). In the few cases where ordinary acquisition through naturalisation can
take place through simplified procedures the required period of residence is normally shorter,
with the exception of Austria, where the period is thirty years, or fifteen years upon proof of
good integration.
4
175
T H E S I M
citizenship on marriage, an application and discretionary decision are still
involved6, but the period of residence required is shorter7.
The transfer of citizenship to children adopted by a citizen applies to
each adopted minor in most countries, but the age limits for minors vary
(e.g. under twelve if adopted by at least one Danish spouse or by an
unmarried citizen in Denmark), and may even include adults if the
application is made within a short period after the adoption (e.g. people
over eighteen adopted by a Spaniard in Spain who apply within the two
years following the adoption). There are different rules for mass or other
unusual adoptions. Thus acquisition of citizenship by adoption is normally
automatic for minors and through registration for adults. Otherwise,
adoption is only a special condition in the classical process of gaining
citizenship.
In an increasing number of countries it is easier than it used to be to reacquire citizenship which had been lost because of renunciation, previous
rules in at least one of the two countries concerned, or another reason. Reacquisition of citizenship usually occurs through facilitated and normal
procedures. In Italy a former citizen re-acquires citizenship automatically
after one year of residence (but can refuse it by declaration), and in Portugal
no loss of citizenship due to the voluntary acquisition of another citizenship
is ever registered.
Among the remaining single or aggregated categories, acquisition based
on cultural affinity due to ethnicity, mother tongue and/or religion occurs
through registration in Germany (for ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe
and the former USSR) and Greece (for ethnic Greeks from the former Soviet
Union).
3.4 Dual citizenship
Nowadays, dual citizenship is allowed in about half the EU MS. In the
other countries, the acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation requires the
renunciation of any other citizenship. However, there are many exceptions8.
6 The exceptions are Austria and, in some cases, Germany and the Netherlands. In the
Netherlands only foreigners married to, or the registered partner of, a Dutch citizen for at least
three years, and who also have at least fifteen years of legal and usual residence in the country,
Netherlands Antilles or Aruba are eligible to acquire citizenship through registration.
7 The time period is reduced by half (e.g. in Germany and Greece) or more (e.g. in Austria and
Slovenia, from ten years to one year), or the requirement is replaced by the intention to reside in
the country (United Kingdom). Conditions on the duration of the marriage are often combined
with other requirements (e.g. in Denmark the minimum duration of the marriage changes
depending on the length of time an applicant was resident in the country before marriage).
176
Chapter 6: Registration of Acquisition of Citizenship
Countries which allow dual citizenship usually permit their citizens to
apply for another citizenship while retaining their original affiliation if the
new country also allows dual citizenship. Acquisition of foreign citizenship
in an involuntary manner or for specific reasons (e.g. by descent in Belgium)
is often a condition in which dual citizenship is allowed.
The existence or non-existence of multiple citizenships complicates the
picture (like multiple residences) and has a potential impact on the statistics.
4. Recording the process of acquiring citizenship
Differences occur in the ways in which the process of acquiring
citizenship is recorded. In most EU MS there is only one body responsible
for naturalisation. In about half the countries, both the acquisition of
citizenship and the registration of cases are exclusively the responsibility of
the Ministry of the Interior. In five other countries (Spain, Ireland, Latvia,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands) this role is taken by the Ministry of
Justice. In Sweden a single body is responsible, but other authorities are
involved. In Denmark, Portugal and France responsibility for the granting of
citizenship and the registration of cases is divided between two bodies,
basically depending on the type of acquisition involved9.
There are three broad ways of organising the recording of the process of
acquiring citizenship. In the first group, the central authorities of the
8 In Germany, children with parents of differing nationalities and children born to foreigners
need not renounce their second citizenship until they reach a certain age. In Luxembourg, the
same applies to children born to citizens abroad, and in Austria to individuals who have been
naturalised for special reasons. In Denmark and the Slovak Republic, refugees cannot, either
legally or de facto, renounce their citizenship. In Spain, some nationals can retain their previous
citizenship, based on cultural and linguistic affinities. The other countries that do not allow
multiple citizenships are the three Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands
and Slovenia. Elsewhere multiple citizenships are generally allowed. This is true for Belgium,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
9 The naturalisation procedure takes between a few months (e.g. typically three in the Czech
Republic and eight in the United Kingdom) and a couple of years (from eighteen to twenty-four
months in Spain, two years on average in Italy, up to six months for the first evaluation in
France, with up to a further eighteen months for the final decision). In some countries the same
naturalisation process may take differing lengths of time: between two and twenty-four months
in Cyprus, and between six and twelve months in the Netherlands. Where facilitated
procedures such as a declaration, registration, notification or option are applied, the process is
regularly quicker. In France, the average wait for the registration of acquisitions by declaration
is less than a month, while the option modality in the Netherlands takes three to six months and
the registrations of citizenship for adults and minors in the United Kingdom takes an average of
3.5 and 8 months respectively. In many countries, citizenship is made retroactive to the date of
submission of the application or other request.
177
T H E S I M
Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Justice are in charge, although
there may be some limited involvement of regional or local offices in
receiving applications and registering information on decisions. This is true
in Central and Eastern European countries and in other countries where
there are few types of or procedures for the acquisition of citizenship. In the
second group, the acquisition and registration procedure involves both a
central service and the local authorities, and thus often results in the
incompatibility of the contents of the various administrative registers. In the
third group, there are more specific procedures, due to the ways in which
responsibilities are subdivided (e.g. with more than one central authority
being involved) or a decentralised administrative system. This is true in
Germany, Austria and the Nordic countries.
Specific databases on the acquisition of citizenship exist everywhere.
However in some states the information is transferred to a more general
database such as the population register. As a consequence, the population
register may include basic data such as sex, age, place of residence, duration
of residence, previous citizenship, legal basis of acquisition, and, if
applicable, citizenship retained after acquisition. The information recorded
on different steps of the procedure (including application or appeal
decisions) is generally more limited.
Conclusion
There are signs of convergence between EU MS in terms of the
acquisition of citizenship, but national situations are still far from completely
harmonised. Given the national relevance of the subject and the tradition,
migration history and administrative framework of each country, differences
can be predicted to remain in the long term. It is also true that the details of
some modes of acquisition in a country are relatively important when
looking at the numbers of people accessing citizenship in that way.
Countries are more similar when consideration is limited to acquisition
through naturalisation based on prolonged residence and integration, or
acquisition through marriage to a citizen.
The sources of information normally available at a central level do not
always include all cases or modes of acquisition, and this may have a huge
impact on the production of statistics.
178
Section 3
Producing Statistics in Accordance
with the Proposed EU Regulation
Chapter 7
Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
Giambattista Cantisani and Michel Poulain
Introduction
From a statistical point of view, no appropriate indicator has been
adopted at international level to enumerate the population with a foreign or
immigration background1. The only initiative in this respect is in the UN
recommendations on international migration, where the long-term
immigrant stock is defined as “the set of persons who have ever changed
their country of usual residence, that is to say, persons who have spent at
least one year of their lives in a country other than the one in which they live
at the time the data is gathered” (UN, 1997: §185). However, the
recommendations conclude that this definition is not acceptable, and
propose the consideration of two proxy variables (country of birth and
country of citizenship) as the best way to identify the population with a
foreign or immigration background. Both criteria appear relevant but
insufficient. On the one hand, the country of birth either as the place of birth
of the person or the place of residence of the mother at the time of that birth
is both too broad and too restrictive2. On the other hand, the country of
citizenship is essential to distinguish nationals and non-nationals but does
not take into consideration that citizenship may change over time according
to different national regulations on its transmission, acquisition,
renunciation and loss. In this context, the proposed EU Regulation aims to
1 Some countries have developed specific concepts for their national situation. For example, the
concept of immigré has been introduced in France and the one of allochtoon in the Netherlands.
The Nordic countries have developed specific tools to describe the population with foreign or
immigrant backgrounds. The comparative aspects of these different proposals are now being
discussed at international level. The measurements mostly relate to concepts of background and
ethnicity, and include characteristics such as citizenship at birth, place of birth of parents,
language etc. A recent Joint UNECE/ Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics (Geneva,
21st-23rd March 2005) focused on existing approaches as well as the statistical treatment of
specific categories of people, in order to produce more comparable statistics.
2 The foreign-born population includes citizens of the country who were born abroad, while it
excludes children born to immigrants within the country.
T H E S I M
collect annual data on the usually resident population by country of
citizenship and by country of birth, and the contents of the proposed data
collection correspond to that undertaken up to now through the ‘Joint
Questionnaire on International Migration Statistics’3. Article 3 of the
proposed EU Regulation reads:
1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on
the numbers of: (…)
(b) natural persons having their usual residence in Member State
disaggregated as follows:
- citizenship by age and sex;
- country of birth by age and sex.
While Article 2.1 gives the following definition:
(a) ‘Usual residence’ shall refer to the place in which a person normally
spends the daily period of rest. Temporary travel for purposes of
recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business, medical
treatment or religious pilgrimage shall not change a person’s place of
usual residence.
The data source and the method used in each EU MS to provide annual
statistics on population stocks will have a direct impact on the availability,
reliability and comparability of the data requested in the EU Regulation.
1. The census
For decades, the census has been the basic way of producing statistics on
population. Annual figures have traditionally been produced by updating
census results with vital and migration statistics. As shown in Comparative
Table 10, most EU MS carried out a population and housing census between
1995 and 2004, the period defining the 2000 Census Round within the
European Community Census Programme4. This was adopted on the basis
3 The only difference is that in the EU Regulation age is a compulsory variable in all tables
requested. In the ‘Joint Questionnaire on International Migration Statistics’, data on population
by country of citizenship is broken down only by five-year age groups.
4 Population and housing censuses were not carried out in Germany or Sweden in the 2000
Census Round. In Germany, a country characterised by some hard discussion about privacy
issues, a test census took place in December 2001 to assess the feasibility of a register-based
census. The results of this test census were satisfactory, and only a limited number of
discrepancies were found between the census test survey results and the local population
182
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ and in line with the previous edition the EU
programme included, in addition to the traditional field enumeration,
alternative methods such as registers or sample surveys. However the aim of
achieving comparable results was maintained. In practice the traditional
census, based solely on field enumeration, is being progressively replaced by
administrative registers5. For the population component of the census, most
EU MS (twenty out of twenty-five) collected information through census
forms submitted to respondents during classical field operations or sent and
collected by post6. Among the remaining countries, Denmark and Finland
carried out a census completely based on existing administrative registers,
while in the Netherlands data collection was based on the administrative
registers and household sample surveys. Among the twenty countries using
census forms, the census enumeration was based on administrative registers
in six (Austria, Belgium, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain). In these
countries administrative registers were used in a different way, for instance
dispatching or mailing out named and partially pre-completed
questionnaires to households for confirmation of data and collection of
supplementary information. In a few countries the field enumeration during
the census operation was used to correct the data included in the
administrative registers. Comparative Tables 10 presents the situation in the
twenty-five EU MS with regard to the relevant authority, the reference date
and the type of census. Additional information is also provided on the links
between the census enumeration and the population registers7.
register data (Braun 2004). In Sweden, after the last census (organised in 1990 based on registers
of the population), efforts were continuing towards conducting a totally register-based census,
but so far without success. Fortunately both countries were able to provide all the basic
population statistics through their population registers and other solutions (such as the microcensus in Germany, an annual survey on a range of socio-economic indicators.
5 France is experimenting with a different innovation by introducing a ‘rolling census’. This was
officially launched in 2004. In this new type of census, the classical country-wide enumeration
through questionnaires collected during a limited period of time will be extended over a period
of five years and supported by geographic systems, administrative sources and sampling
techniques depending on the size of the commune. This project will facilitate the annual release
(from 2008 onwards) of figures that are on average less than three years old on the legal
population in each commune, as well as comprehensive data on all geographical zones.
However exhaustive figures for the population stock of the whole territory at a given date will
no longer be available.
6 Among the EU MS, only Spain offered an alternative collection of census forms through the
Internet.
7 Comparative Tables 10 and 11 (the latter focuses on coverage issues) were compiled on the
basis of the survey on census practices carried out by UNECE (2004) and additional
investigations within the THESIM project.
183
T H E S I M
2. Census definitions of the ‘usually resident population’
According to the UNECE, the definition of the place of usual residence is
one of the most important and critical issues in the framework of the
forthcoming 2010 census recommendations (Valente, 2004). This definition,
and the way it is applied during the census, directly influences the results
for the total usually resident population. This is also true for the annual
population figures requested by the EU Regulation, because in most EU MS
this figure is still more or less dependent on the census enumeration. A large
majority of EU MS used the concept and definition of usually resident
population proposed by the ‘Principles and Recommendations for
Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1’ (UN, 1997) and the
‘Recommendations for the 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing in the
ECE Region’ (UNECE, 1998). However, in the countries where the field
enumeration of the census was exclusively based on administrative registers
(Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands and Finland) and no correction of the
registers was allowed, the definition used was the administrative place of
residence according to the administrative rules. When the definitions of the
usual place of residence in the original UN recommendations (UN, 1997)
and in the more specific UNECE recommendations for the ECE region
(UNECE, 1998) are analysed in detail some differences appear. In the UN
recommendations the place of usual residence is defined as “... the
geographical place where the enumerated person usually resides. This may
be the same as, or different from, the place where he or she was present at
the time of the census or his or her legal residence” (UN, 1997: § 2.20). In the
UNECE recommendations it is “…the geographic place where the
enumerated person usually resides; this may be the same as, or different
from, the place where he/she actually is at the time of the Census; or it may
be his/her legal residence. A person’s usual residence should be that at
which he/she spends most of his/her daily night-rest” (UNECE, 1998: § 30).
This slight difference in wording between the two sets of recommendations
suggests that according UNECE the legal place of residence can be chosen
instead of the place where he/she usually resides (although the next
sentence contradicts this). Most European statistical institutions were in
favour of this interpretation. Following this interpretation of the UNECE
recommendations, the ECE countries were allowed to use the administrative
place of residence as the place of usual residence for the census
enumeration. Accordingly the population data obtained by these censuses is
not fully comparable across all 25 EU MS, as the various administrative
registers used for the enumeration employ different definitions to define the
place where a person should be registered from an administrative point of
184
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
view. Moreover the recommended definition of the usual place of residence
does not explain what time criteria should be used to identify the place
where the person spends most of his/her daily night-rest. For the purposes
of migration statistics, the main problem is how to define the usual country
of residence. More specifically, it is to identify citizens living temporarily
abroad and foreigners who have immigrated into a country. There are three
different sets of international recommendations dealing with the problem of
defining the usual place of residence and the usual country of residence of
international migrants:
(1) The UN Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration
propose the following definition for the country of usual residence and longterm and short-term migrants (UN, 1998, Box 1):
Box 1. Definition of country of usual residence, of long-term international
migrant and of short-term international migrant
Country of usual residence: The country in which a person lives, that is
to say, the country in which he or she has a place to live where he or she
normally spends the daily period of rest. Temporary travel abroad for
purposes of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives, business,
medical treatment or religious pilgrimage does not change a person's
country of usual residence.
Long-term migrant: A person who moves to a country other than that of
his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so
that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country
of usual residence. From the perspective of the country of departure the
person will be a long-term emigrant and from that of the country of
arrival the person will be a long-term immigrant.
Short-term migrant: A person who moves to a country other than that of
his or her usual residence for a period of at least 3 months but less than a
year (12 months) except in cases where the movement to that country is
for purposes of recreation, holiday, visits to friends and relatives,
business, medical treatment or religious pilgrimage. For purposes of
international migration statistics, the country of usual residence of shortterm migrants is considered to be the country of destination during the
period they spend in it.
(2) Recommendations for the 2000 Censuses of Population and Housing
in the ECE Region (UNECE, 1998: §§ 32-35) includes a reference to the
recommendations on international migration statistics and makes some
important distinctions between categories:
185
T H E S I M
32. A long-term international migrant is a person who moves to a country
other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year
(12 months), so that the country of destination ef-fectively becomes his or
her new country of usual residence.
33. From the perspective of the country of departure, the person will be a
long-term emigrant, and from that of the country of arrival the person
will be a long-term immigrant. (This corresponds with place of usual
residence one year prior to the Census [core topic 2]).
34. A short-term migrant is a person who moves to a country other than
that of his or her usual residence for at least three months but for less than
a year. Since these persons have their usual place of residence in another
country, they should not be included in the count of the total population
that usually resides in the country. However, if a country intends to
obtain data from the census on short-term immigration flows, for that
particular purpose countries should consider the country of usual
residence of the short-term migrants to be the country of destination
during the period they spend in the country.
35. In general, a person who is absent from his or her previous
place/country of usual residence for one year or more should not be
considered as temporarily absent.
(3) The concept of country of usual residence is also used to determine
who is a visitor for the purpose of international tourism statistics. According
to the UN Recommendations on Tourism Statistics (UN and World Tourism
Organisation, 1994):
A person is considered to be a resident in a country if the person: (a) has
lived for most of the past year (12 months) in that country or (b) has lived
in that country for a shorter period and intends to return within 12
months to live in that country (§ 24). An international visitor is defined
later as any person who travels to a country other than that in which
he/she has his/her usual residence but outside his/her usual
environment for a period not exceeding 12 months and whose main
purpose of visit is other than the exercise of an activity remuner-ated
from within the country visited (§ 29).
According to these recommendations, all emigrants who left a country
less than one year ago having declared their intention to stay abroad for less
than one year should be included in the population, having their usual place
of residence in that country. On the other hand those who left more than one
year ago, whatever their intended duration of stay abroad, should be
excluded, as should those who emigrated during the last year with the
intention of living abroad for more than one year. As far as immigrants are
186
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
concerned everybody entering the country with the intention of living there
for one year or more should be considered as having their usual residence in
the country. However most foreigners do not have the right to live in a
country for more than three months without authorisation and therefore the
concept of intention is not sufficient to define the country of usual residence.
Accordingly the definition of an international immigrant should consider
that:
ƒ all foreigners who do not need a residence permit to live in a country
should be treated similarly to citizens of that country, and should be
considered as part of the usually resident population if they intend
to live in the country for at least one year;
ƒ all third-country nationals for whom a residence permit is required
should be considered as part of the usually resident population if
they have been granted one or more valid residence permits for a
total duration of at least one year and intend to live in the country
for at least one year;
ƒ all other foreigners without residence permits but seeking asylum
should also be considered as part of the usually resident population
after one year of effective residence in the country8;
ƒ all other undocumented foreigners, clandestine migrants, rejected
asylum seekers and foreigners with expired residence permits
should also be considered as part of the usually resident population
after one year of effective residence in the country.
Thus the one-year period of absence or presence is a key element for
identifying the usually resident population for census enumeration.
However in discussions between statisticians the time limit of twelve
months is often contrasted to a three-month time limit. In 1995, during the
latest revision of the UN recommendations, pros and cons for both time
limits were put forward (UN, 1995). Concretely, the one-year criterion
allows a better fit between the annual production of statistics on migration
flows and population stocks. The three-month limit increases the number of
migrants compared with the one-year limit, but at the same time decreases
the level of self-declaration of migration and hence the coverage of these
migrants. Finally the three-month limit is more appropriate relative to the
administrative procedures associated with visas and residence permits
(since periods of stay in a country longer than three months are usually
linked to appropriate authorisation). In order to take both time limits into
8 Accordingly, when foreigners with temporary residence permits or asylum seekers are not
included in the population register, the aliens register or asylum database should be used to
count those who have been living in the country for one year or more.
187
T H E S I M
consideration, the UN recommendations introduced the concepts of longterm and short-term migrants. The EU Regulation considers only the twelvemonth time limit and defines an international migrant in a similar way to
the UN’s definition of a long-term migrant. The recommendations do not
give clear guidance on whether intended durations of absence or presence
should be considered or if de facto durations may be used. For specific
groups of people the intended duration of stay may be corroborated by ad
hoc documents. If this is not possible, only the de facto duration of absence or
presence should be considered in retrospect. Attention should also be
devoted to checking whether the same definition is used for including or
excluding international migrants in the population stock and for counting
the corresponding international migration in the migration flow statistics so
as to retain compatibility between the two sets of figures.
3. The usually resident population in the last census round
The population groups included in the usually resident population in EU
MS at the last census9 are displayed in Comparative Table 11 and compared
with the UN recommendations. This information is important as it also
determines the population groups composing the usually resident
population in annual figures. Nationals usually living in the country are
included in the total usually resident population in all EU MS. Nationals
who left the country are not counted if they have been living abroad for at
least twelve months. However it is not clear whether nationals who left the
country during the last twelve months with the intention of living abroad for
one year or more are included or not. The time limit for exclusion is reduced
to six months in France and the United Kingdom and to three months in
Ireland, while there is no fixed time limit in Belgium, Denmark, Germany or
the Slovak Republic. In most countries, following the international
recommendations, other EEA citizens and third-country nationals holding a
valid residence permit, who have been living in the country for one year or
more or who immigrated during the past year and intend and/or have the
right to stay in the country for one year or more, were counted in the census
enumeration. However the time limit for the inclusion of third-country
nationals in the census enumeration is sometimes shorter. In France it is only
six months, while in Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland and Hungary it is
three months. In most EU MS, nationals who return to the country are
included in the census enumeration without any time delay. Asylum seekers
9
The 1987 census for Germany and the 1991 census for Sweden are considered.
188
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
with pending requests who were present in the country at time of the census
were included in the usually resident population in a majority of EU MS but
excluded in Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria,
Poland and the Slovak Republic. In the Netherlands asylum seekers may be
registered in the municipal population registers (GBA), and accordingly
included in the usually resident population, after six months of residence in
the country. In all other countries where asylum seekers are included, it is
unclear whether the stricter time limit of twelve months’ residence was
applied or not. People who have been granted refugee status under the
Geneva Convention and other people protected for humanitarian reasons
are included in the census enumeration and in the usually resident
population in all EU MS except Greece, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak
Republic, Finland and Sweden without any limits related to a minimum
period of in the country. Undocumented migrants, a population group for
whom there were no specific instructions in the census recommendations,
were included in the usually resident population in Estonia, Greece, Spain,
France, Ireland, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia and the United
Kingdom based on the field enumeration (irrespective of their legal status in
the country). The UN recommendations are to include all (long-) term
immigrants (i.e. people who entered the country with the intention of living
there for at least one year and not only those who have actually lived in the
country for at least a year) in the census. However it is not clear whether a
question on the intended duration of stay was really included in the census
in all countries. The recommendation does not include any check on the
right to live in the country. In countries where the census enumeration was
based on population registers, the administrative rules of registration for
immigrants were applied in all cases.
4. Statistics on the annual population stock
4.1 Methods of production
EU MS use different methods to produce annual statistics on the
population stock with usual residence in the country, and rely to a greater or
lesser extent on census enumeration when doing this. These methods may
be tentatively divided into four main groups as follows (Comparative Table
12):
ƒ The annual figure on the stock of the usually resident population is
exclusively based on administrative registers and census data do not
exist or are not used. Where a concept of administrative place of
189
T H E S I M
residence is applied in population registers, it is supposed to be to
the concept of usual place of residence. In these countries the annual
population stock is produced exclusively on the basis of the register
and involves no revi-sion of the population figure based on census
field enumeration (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Latvia10, Sweden
and the Netherlands).
ƒ A census field enumeration is carried out on the basis of the list of
inhabitants extracted from the population registers, and these
registers are checked for any errors detected during the field
enumeration. Accordingly, at the time of the census, the population
stock recorded in the population registers is corrected in order to be
consistent with the enumerated stocks in the census. The annual
population figures are based on the population register where
‘census-register’ are updated by individual data on births, deaths
and international migrations during the inter-census period. All
demographic variables are included in these annual figures. From
the statistical point of view the corrections to the population registers
at the time of the census should be considered as administrative
corrections and the population stock and all demographic figures
should be revised retrospectively back to the previous census
(Austria, Slovenia and Spain).
ƒ The population figures are based on the census enumeration and annual population figures are calculated using the census figures as the
starting point, updated through aggregated register-based
information on vital events and migrations since the time of the
census. These an-nual calculations include only some basic
demographic variables and are usually revised retrospectively when
the data from the following census becomes available (Czech
Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Poland and the Slovak Republic).
ƒ The stock of the resident population is measured only at the time of
the census, while estimated figures are based on the census figure
updated in the inter-census period with aggregated numbers of
recorded vital events and estimates of migration flows based on
survey data or other alternative data sources (Cyprus, Greece,
Ireland, Malta, Portugal and United Kingdom). In France, the
estimated figures will result from the rolling census. These
population estimates are only totals, and disaggregation by basic
10
This method has been used in Latvia since 2000.
190
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
demographic variables is seldom available. In the third method,
additional attention has to be paid to the fact that the census
enumeration is based on the usual place of residence, while the
population registers used to update the census data refer to the
administrative place of residence.
ƒ In addition to these four methods of producing annual stock figures,
some countries (Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and Slovenia)
are currently using ‘combine methods’ where nationals and
foreigners are considered separately.
4.2 Population stocks
As Comparative Table 13 shows, censuses generally provide good data
on the stock of the usually resident population by citizenship or country of
birth, as requested by the EU Regulation11. These data are less available
when annual figures are considered. Annual statistics on the country of
citizenship are produced or will be produced based on population registers
in Austria, Belgium, Latvia, Netherlands, Spain and the Nordic countries.
Other countries (Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Portugal and
Slovenia) use a combined method based on the aliens register and a
calculation or estimate for nationals. For example, in the Czech Republic
data on nationals are updated on the basis of statistics obtained from the
administrative records of births, deaths, immigrations and emigrations and
these data refer to Czech citizens permanently residing in the country.
Statistics on stocks of foreigners are produced using data on residence
permits valid for more than one year. As a result the annual figure on total
population is produced as a sum of nationals and foreigners. A similar
solution is adopted in Germany, although it does not comply with
international recommendations: the stocks of nationals are estimated by
adjusting population figure on the basis of the population registers, while
detailed statistics on foreigners by country of citizenship are based on the
Central Aliens Register (AZR). Specific methods are also applied in France
(using data from the rolling census), Ireland and the United Kingdom (based
on household surveys), Italy (ad hoc investigations based on local
population registers) and Luxembourg (annual calculation without
breakdown by age). Annual figures on the usually resident population by
11 The only exception is the United Kingdom, where the question was not asked of respondents
in 2000. Historically the United Kingdom has adopted the concept of the ethnic group, but
information on citizenship is expected to be included in the next census. In future only
estimates may be expected for France, as a result of the rolling census.
191
T H E S I M
country of birth are usually available in countries where centralised
population registers exist. Exceptions are the Czech Republic, Hungary and
Poland, where this variable is not included in the central register; however
some improvements may be expected in future. Some estimated figures are
available in France (based on the rolling census) and in Ireland and the
United Kingdom (based on surveys).
Conclusion
The methods used in EU MS for producing annual statistics on
population stocks are diverse. Some countries rely fully on population
registers, while others use census data that are updated annually with vital
events and estimates of the migration balance. Accordingly the definition of
the usually resident population varies slightly, and is often based on the de
jure population as recorded in the population registers. Compliance with the
EU Regulation is satisfactory only at census time, from the point of view of
the availability of statistics on the usually resident population by country of
birth and country of citizenship. Annual statistics are available (or will be in
future) in countries where the data are fully based on population registers
(the two first categories in our classification). In other countries combined
methods based on different databases are used to provide estimates. In these
countries detailed metadata are needed to take all the differences in
international comparisons into consideration. As far as reliability and
comparability are concerned, most EU MS use the concept of the
administrative place of residence in accounting for their population. This
may be slightly different from the EU- and UN-recommended concept of
usual residence. The differences between these two definitions should be
clearly identified, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and efforts should
be made to develop appropriate methodologies for producing comparable
figures12. To ensure full compatibility between migration flow and
population stock data on international migrants, all immigrants should be
included in the usually resident population and all emigrants excluded. This
is done automatically in countries where stocks and flows are based on the
same population register, and in this case the correct registration of
international migrants is the key element (see Chapters 3 and 8). In the
12 For example, according to the EU regulation, asylum seekers should be included in
population stock figures, while legal and administrative rules may exclude these people from
the de jure population of the country. In this specific case a figure for the total usually resident
population may be produced by combining data from population registers for the de jure
population with data from the asylum register.
192
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
absence of population registers, population figures are usually based on
census enumeration while figures for migration flows may be based on
surveys or may even be non-existent. In such cases a correct enumeration of
international migrants in the census is essential, and should include the
following points: Everyone in the country for more than one year should be
considered as part of the usually resident population.
ƒ Returning citizens, other EEA citizens and permanent residence
permit holders who have immigrated during the past year should be
asked if it is their intention to stay at least one year in the country.
ƒ The duration of validity of temporary residence permits for thirdcountry nationals should be considered and only those holding a
residence permit for one year or more should be included as usually
resident and members of the de jure population of the country.
ƒ People who are temporarily absent for one year or more should not
be included in the usually resident population.
ƒ Citizens, other EEA citizens and permanent residence permit holders
who left the country during the past year should be excluded if they
intend to stay abroad for one year or more, while those who intend
to return within a year should be considered as still being part of the
usually resident population. The latter rule may be applied only to
those who have left the country but who still have relatives living in
the country who are able to tell the census enumerators that the
people concerned intend to return within a year.
All third-country nationals with temporary residence permits who are
temporarily absent should be excluded from the census enumeration.
Despite these limitations, we consider that, within the context of the EU
Regulation, the information on the usually resident population by
citizenship and country of birth is among the more reliable and comparable
data available.
193
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 10. Main characteristics of the population and housing censuses
Responsible body
Reference
date (of last
census)
BE
Statistics Belgium
1.10.2001
CZ
Czech Statistical Office
(CSU)
1.3.2001
DK
Statistics Denmark
1.1.2001
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
Federal Statistical Office
(DESTATIS)
Statistical Office of
Estonia
National Statistical
Service of Greece
(NSSG)
National Institute of
Statistics (INE)
National Institute of
Statistics and Economic
Studies (INSEE)
Central Statistical Office
(CSO)
National Institute of
Statistics (ISTAT)
Statistical Service of
Cyprus (CYSTAT)
Central Statistical
Bureau of Latvia (CSB)
Department of Statistics
Central Service for
Statistics and Economic
Studies (STATEC)
Central Statistical Office
(KSH)
National Statistical
Office (NSO)
Statistics Netherlands
(CBS)
Statistics Austria
(ÖSTAT)
Central Statistical Office
(GUS)
National Statistical
Institute (INE)
25.5.19871
31.3.2000
Type of
census
Traditional
Traditional
Registerbased
Traditional
Traditional
Field
enumeration
based on
registers
Feedback
from
census to
population
register
Yes
No
No
No
No field operations
No
No
No
No
18.3.2001
Traditional
No register
No register
1.11.2001
Traditional
Yes
Yes
1.1.2004
Rolling
census
No register
No register
No register
No register
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No register
No register
28.4.2002
21.10.2001
1.10.2001
31.3.2000
6.4.2001
15.2.2001
1.2.2001
26.11.1995
1.1.2001
15.5.2001
21.5.2002
12.3.2001
194
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
Registerbased2
Traditional
Traditional
Traditional
No field operation
Yes
Yes
No
No
No register
No register
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
Responsible body
SI
SK
Statistical Office of the
Republic of Slovenia
(SURS)
Statistical Office of the
Slovak Republic (SUSR)
Reference
date (of last
census)
31.3.2002
26.5.2001
FI
Statistics Finland
31.12.2000
SE
Statistics Sweden (SCB)
1.11.1990
UK
Office for National
Statistics (ONS); General
Register Office for
Scotland (GROS);
Northern Ireland
Statistical and Research
Agency (NISRA)
29.4.2001
1
2
In the former Federal Republic of Germany
Including data derived from sample surveys.
195
Type of
census
Field
enumeration
based on
registers
Feedback
from
census to
population
register
Traditional
Yes
No
No
No
Traditional
Registerbased
Mainly
Registerbased
Traditional
No field operation
Yes
No
No register
No register
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 11a. Groups of persons included in the total resident population of
population and housing censuses1
Population
groups
Nationals
National
diplomats,
international civil
servants and
army members in
mission abroad 2
Nationals who
left the country
and are living
abroad 3
Non-National
diplomats,
international
experts and
foreign army
members 2
EEA citizens 3
Non EEA citizens
with permanent
residence permit 3
Non EEA citizens
with temporary
residence permit 3
Asylum seekers
with pending
request
Refugees and
other persons
having received
protection for
humanitarian
reasons
Other non EEA
citizens living in
the country on an
illegal basis5
UN
1
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
12+
N
N
N
6+
N
3+
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
6+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
Y
Y
12+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
6+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
Y
3+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
6+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
12+ 12+ 12+
N
Y
P
N
N
N
12+
12+
12+
4
Y
N
N
Source: UNECE ( 2004) and THESIM Country Reports.
1 UN recommendations on censuses (UN, 1997).
2 Including dependants and domestic employees.
3 In some countries for at least 3, 6, 12 months.
4 Excluding students.
5 Including those who entered illegally, those who requested asylum but did not succeed and were
forced to leave the country and those with an invalid residence permit..
196
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
Comparative Table 11b. Groups of persons included in the total resident population of
population and housing censuses1
Population
groups
Nationals
LT
LU
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
National
diplomats,
international civil
Y
servants and
army members in
mission abroad 2
Nationals who
N
left the country
and are living
12+
abroad 3
Non National
diplomats,
international
N
experts and
foreign army
members 2
Y
EEA citizens 3
12+
Non EEA citizens
Y
with permanent
12+
3
residence permit
Non EEA citizens
Y
with temporary
12+
3
residence permit
Asylum seekers
N
with pending
request
Refugees and
other persons
having received
N
protection for
humanitarian
reasons
Other non EEA
citizens living in
N
the country on an
illegal basis5
HU MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SK
SI
FI
SE
UK
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+
N
N
Y
12+
Y
3+
Y
12+
N
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
12+ 12+ 12+
N
6+
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+
Y
Y
12+
Y
Y
12+
Y
6+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+
Y
Y
12+
Y
Y
12+
Y
6+
Y
12+
Y
3+
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+ 12+ 12+ 12+
N
Y
12+
Y
Y
Y
12+ 12+
Y
Y
N
P
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
P
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Source: UNECE (2004) and THESIM Country Reports.
1 UN recommendations on censuses (UN, 1997).
2 Including dependants and domestic employees.
3 In some countries for at least 3, 6, 12 months.
4 Excluding students.
5 Including those who entered illegally, those who requested asylum but did not succeed and were
forced to leave the country and those with an invalid residence permit..
197
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 12. Production of annual statistics on the usually resident population
Method for producing
annual statistics on the
usual resident population1
BE
Exclusive use of
population register
CZ
Combined method
DK
Exclusive use of
population register
DE
Combined method
EE
Annual estimate
EL
Annual estimate
ES
Use of population register
updated with census
FR
Annual estimate (rolling
census)
IE
Annual estimate
IT
Annual calculation
CY
Annual estimate
LV
Exclusive use of
population register
LT
Annual calculation
LU
Annual calculation
HU
Combined method
MT
Annual estimate
Coverage specificities
(not considering the systematic exclusion of asylum
seekers and the partial inclusion of nationals living
abroad)
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence.
Based on permanent residence for nationals
Including non-nationals with valid residence permits
of one year or more.
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence.
For citizens, annual figures are based on 1987 census
data updates with vital events and migrations from
local population register. Foreigners stocks are
calculated separately based on the AZR.
For updating census data migration events are not
considered and vital events are used and based on
population register.
For updating census data migration events are not
considered and vital events are used and based on
civil registers.
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence and
including asylum seekers if they are registered.
Annual estimates are based on the rolling census
results with the population having at least 6 months of
usual residence in the country. Registered vital events
are considered and estimates of migration are done.
The census is based on de facto population and
updated with registered vital events and estimates of
migration obtained through the Labor Force Survey.
For updating census data migration events and vital
events are used and based on population register.
The census is based on the usual resident population
and updated with registered vital events and estimates
of migration, students abroad are included.
Including non-nationals with valid residence permits
of one year or more, all nationals are considered
automatically as usual residents.
Based on census data updated with vital events and
migrations from the population register.
The census is based on de facto population and
updated with registered vital and migration events in
the population register.
Based on permanent residence for nationals and aliens
register for non-nationals. Excluding refugees.
The census is based on the usual resident population
and updated with registered vital events and estimates
of migration.
198
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
Method for producing
annual statistics on the
usual resident population1
Coverage specificities
(not considering the systematic exclusion of asylum
seekers and the partial inclusion of nationals living
abroad)
NL
Exclusive use of
population register
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence and
including asylum seekers who have registered after 6
months of stay.
AT
Use of population register
updated with census
Minimum residence of 90 days.
PL
Annual calculation
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on permanent residence.
PT
Annual estimate
SI
Combined method
SK
Annual calculation
FI
SE
UK
Exclusive use of
population register
Exclusive use of
population register
Annual estimate
Based on permanent residence for nationals and aliens’
database for non-nationals.
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on permanent residence.
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence.
Legal resident population as it is defined in the
population register based on the usual residence.
At least 6 months of usual residence.
1 Legend:
Exclusive use of population register: data directly extracted from administrative population registers.
Use of population register updated with census: the same as above but the population register is updated
through each census.
Annual calculation: population adjustments or other methods based on census results combined with
annual information from registration of vital events and migration flows extracted from population
registers or through statistical forms.
Annual estimate: population estimates based on census results combined with annual information from
registration of vital events and only estimates of migration flows based on surveys or other sources.
Combined method: calculation or estimate for nationals combined with data from the residence permit
database for non-nationals (EEA citizens may be estimated with nationals or through the residence
permit database).
199
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 13. Production of statistics on the usually resident population by
country of citizenship and country of birth1
Age, sex and country of citizenship
Age, sex and country of birth
Census
statistics
Annual statistics
Census
statistics
Annual statistics
BE
Y
Y
Y
Y
CZ
Y
Y
[Population register]
Y
No data
[Population register]
DK
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
No data
Y
No data
[Population register]
Y
No data
Y (Combined method, 3
months of usual
residence for nonnationals)
No data
[Population register]
No data
[Residence permit system]
DE
Y
EE
Y
EL
Y
ES
Y
Y
Y
Y
FR
Y (as estimate)
Y (as estimate)
Y (as estimate)
Y (as estimate)
IE
Y
Y (survey estimate, for
groups of age and
citizenship)
Y
Y (survey estimate, for
groups of age and
citizenship)
IT
Y
Y (ad hoc investigation,
no data by age)
Y
No data
CY
Y
No data
(only estimate for
nationals and nonnationals)
Y
No data
LV
Y
Y
Y
Y
LT
Y
No data
[Population register]
Y
No data
[Population register]
LU
Y
Y (no detail by age)
Y
No data
HU
Y
Y
Y
No data
Y
No data
(only estimate for
nationals
and non-nationals)
MT
Y
No data
200
Chapter 7: Statistics on Population with Usual Residence
Age, sex and country of citizenship
Age, sex and country of birth
Census
statistics
Annual statistics
Census
statistics
Annual statistics
NL
Y
Y
Y
Y
AT
Y
Y
[Population register]
Y
Y
[Population register]
PL
Y
No data
[Residence permit database]
Y
No data
[Residence permit database]
PT
Y
Y (Residence permit
database)
Y
No data
SI
Y
Y
Y
Y
SK
Y
Y (Residence permit
database)
Y
Y (Residence permit
database)
FI
Y
Y
Y
Y
SE
Y
Y
Y
Y
UK
No data
Y (survey estimates)
Y
Y (survey estimates)
1 Information on the method is reported only when it is different from the general method as presented
in Comparative Table 12. Text in italic within square brackets denotes that statistics could be available or
are expected soon through the method mentioned here.
201
Chapter 8
Statistics on International Migration Flows
Beata Nowok, Dorota Kupiszewska and Michel Poulain
Introduction
The provision of statistics on international migration flows is specified in
Article 3 of the proposed EU Regulation, as follows:
1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on
the numbers of:
(a) immigrants moving to the territory of the Member State, disaggregated as follows:
(i) citizenship by age and sex;
(ii) country of birth by age and sex;
(iii) country of previous usual residence by age and sex.
The above articles must be read in conjunction with the definitions of the
terms they use. These are formulated in Article 2.1 of the proposed EU
Regulation in the following way:
(b) ‘immigration’ means the action by which a natural person estab-lishes
his or her usual residence in the territory of a Member State for a pe-riod
that is, or is expected to be, of at least twelve months, having previously
been usually resident in another Member State or a third country;
(c) ‘emigration’ means the action by which a natural person, having
previously been usually resident in the territory of a Member State, ceases
to have his usual residence in that Member State for a period that is, or is
expected to be, of at least twelve months;
(d) ‘immigrant’ means a natural person undertaking an immigration;
(e) ‘emigrant’ means a natural person undertaking an emigration;
A clarification is necessary before more detailed analysis of the situation
is undertaken. The EU Regulation requests the numbers of immigrants and
emigrants, not the numbers of immigrations and emigrations. During a
given year a person may be involved in multiple international migrations, as
defined in national practice, and therefore the number of international
T H E S I M
migrants may be slightly smaller than the number of international
migrations. If the twelve-month rule is strictly applied there will of course be
no difference in counting migrations or migrants during a given year. But as
most countries’ data-collection systems consider the number of international
migrations and not international migrants, and do not follow the twelvemonth rule, the numbers of international migrations in these countries will
be higher than the number of international migrants as requested by a strict
interpretation of the EU Regulation.
1. Comparison with the UN recommendations
The first point to be assessed is whether the definitions in the EU
Regulation are in agreement with the UN recommendations on statistics of
international migration (UN, 1998). As already mentioned in Chapter 7, the
EU definition corresponds to the UN definition of ‘long-term migrant’. Both
are based on the condition of establishing the usual place of residence in the
destination country for twelve months or more. Such a definition should
ensure that statistics collected on international migration flows for the
purposes of the EU Regulation are consistent with the statistics on total
usually resident population, which should also cover people staying or
intending to stay for twelve months or more (Chapter 7).
Short-term migrants (i.e. people changing their usual place of residence
for a period of between three and twelve months) do not fall within the
scope of the EU Regulation (except for statistics on residence permits, as
discussed in Chapter 9). The Member States’ main interest is in long-term
migrants, but short-term migrants cannot be ignored in policy
considerations. As stated in the UN recommendations: “because one of the
new features of international population mobility is the increase of shortterm international movements of people for purposes other than tourism, it
is important to gather information on some of the persons who spend less
than a year in a country other than that of their usual residence” (UN, 1998:
§37).
If countries are interested in collecting statistics on short-term migrants
as well (outside the EU Regulation) it is important for international
harmonisation that statistics on the two types of migrants should be
reported separately. Further, the term ‘international migrant’ here carries the
meaning specified in the EU Regulation, i.e. a long-term migrant.
The duration of stay is an important variable in data collection on
international migrants. According to the EU Regulation, the criterion is a
period that is, or is expected to be, of at least twelve months. This definition,
204
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
formulated in accordance with the UN recommendations, provides three
options:
ƒ to determine the actual duration of stay on an ex post basis by
waiting a minimum of twelve months after the date of immigration;
ƒ to rely on self-reported information on the intended duration of stay,
provided by the migrant at the time of immigration;
ƒ to assume that the duration of stay will be the same as the duration
of validity of the residence permit for immigrants who need a
residence permit.
The first option provides the most accurate reflection of the actual
situation. However it has the disadvantage that complete statistics on people
who moved in year t and stayed for twelve months or longer would not be
produced until year t+2. It does not allow data suppliers to meet the
requirements of the EU Regulation, that statistics be produced within ten
months of the end of the reference year. A viable alternative is offered by
statistics based on intended duration of stay, which may be delivered in due
time. These statistics include, in particular, nationals and foreigners with
long-term resident status. For other foreigners who need a residence permit
to live in the country, the intended duration of stay in combination with the
duration of validity of the residence permit is the most appropriate criterion.
Asylum seekers whose applications are pending are a special category of
foreigners who should be included in the international migration statistics
only after their stay in the country has lasted at least one year (Chapter 10).
2. Sources of data on international migration flows
The availability of statistics on international migration flows is
conditioned by the existence of a data-collection system that can yield
meaningful statistical information on changes of place of usual residence.
The major types of data sources used to produce statistics on international
migration flows may be summarised as follows:
ƒ population registration systems, including local and centralised
population registers;
ƒ statistical forms completed for all changes of residence;
ƒ other administrative registers related to foreigners (e.g. aliens
registers, residence permit databases and asylum seekers databases);
ƒ data collection on border crossings and other sample surveys;
ƒ population censuses.
Detailed information on sources used to produce international migration
statistics across the EU are presented in Comparative Table 14. To be
comprehensive, statistics should cover immigrants and emigrants,
205
T H E S I M
irrespective of their citizenship. However, governments are usually more
interested in controlling the migration, particularly immigration, of
foreigners than of their own citizens. This priority is reflected in their
administrative procedures and data-collection systems. Therefore, data
sources for statistics on immigration of nationals, immigration of foreigners,
emigration of nationals and emigration of foreigners are presented
separately below. In practice in all the countries (except the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic) which produce
statistics on both nationals and non-nationals, the data are derived from the
same source, usually population registers (thirteen countries) and statistical
surveys (four countries). As a consequence of the recent EU Directive on the
right of residence for all EU citizens in other EU MS1 an additional
distinction between foreigners who are EU citizens and third-country
nationals will be needed in future (as proposed in Comparative Table 16).
Centralised population registers
Centralised population registers are used to produce statistics on
international migration flows for both nationals and non-nationals in eight
countries (Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and
Finland). In all these countries the National Statistical Institute (NSI) receives
from the centralised population register, on a periodic basis, a copy of all
registrations and de-registrations. Registrations of migrants coming from
abroad are considered as international immigrations while de-registrations
of migrants moving abroad are counted as international emigrations. In
Austria Spain and Sweden the NSI keeps, for statistical purposes, a
centralised population register that includes information on changes of
residence received monthly (in Spain) or daily (in Sweden) from local
population registers (Spain2) or the Tax Authority (Sweden). The Czech
Republic, Hungary and Slovenia also derive their statistics on international
migration from their centralised population registers, but only for nationals3.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29th April 2004 on the
right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the
territory of the Member States.
2 Apart from statistical purposes, the INE central population register is used to coordinate the
operation of local population registers.
3 In Hungary the population register includes only foreigners with permanent residence
permits, while in the Czech Republic and Slovenia the population registers theoretically cover
both nationals and non-nationals. However the data are considered to be less reliable than those
extracted from the aliens registers.
1
206
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Local population registers
Local population registers are used to derive statistics on international
migration flows in three EU MS: Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The
details of the preparation of migration statistics in these three countries
vary4. In some countries (Poland and Slovak Republic), centralised
population registers are in operation, but are not yet systematically used for
statistical purposes because of the lack, or poor quality, of some crucial
information5. In these two countries data on international migration for
nationals and non-nationals are still collected through statistical forms filled
in when a person is registered or deregistered6.
Aliens registers and residence permit databases
Aliens registers and residence permit databases constitute a valuable
source of data on international migration in countries where the population
register does not cover the whole target foreign population (Hungary), the
development of the population register is not yet complete (Czech Republic,
Slovenia and Slovak Republic), or where there is no population register
(France, Greece and Portugal). It is worth noting that in countries where no
4 In Germany statistics are based on data from the administrative forms for local registration of
arrivals and departures. They are anonymised and aggregated by the statistical offices of each
Länder on a monthly basis and then transmitted to the Federal Statistical Office. It must be noted
that there may be small discrepancies between registration rules in operation in various Länder.
In the Netherlands all local registers send details of changes of residence and administrative
corrections to Statistics Netherlands by electronic mail on a daily basis. In Italy the preparation
of migration flow statistics is based on two different data-collection questionnaires sent by
ISTAT to all municipalities. In the first questionnaire each municipality is obliged to deliver
aggregated data on the demographic balance of the resident population, and in the second one
individual data on changes of residence are requested. However statistics based on the two
sources are not compatible.
5 For instance, in the Polish central population register there is no indication of the previous
place of residence. In the Slovak population register there are a number of persons whose
former Czechoslovak citizenship has not yet been replaced by the new Czech or Slovak
citizenship, so statistics on migration flows by citizenship cannot be produced. Fortunately in
both countries the centralised population register is currently being improved and will be used
for statistical purposes in the future.
6 In Poland the statistical parts of the registration forms and copies of the administrative
deregistration forms are sent to the Ministry of the Interior, where the data are input into a
computer text file and then sent to the Central Statistical Office. In the Slovak Republic special
statistical forms are filled in and they are sent directly to the statistical office. Identical forms,
inherited from the time when Czechoslovakia existed, were used in the Czech Republic to
produce statistics on international migration of nationals until the reference year 2004
(inclusive).
207
T H E S I M
statistics on international migration can be produced using population
registers, the residence permit databases could be an alternative data source
as far as immigration of third-country nationals is concerned.
Border crossing forms
Border crossing forms are no longer used for producing statistics on
international migration in EU MS. Sample migration surveys are used to
produce statistics on international immigration and emigration flows in four
countries: through household surveys carried out within the country in
Portugal and Ireland and through sample surveys of border crossers in
Cyprus and the United Kingdom. In addition, the United Kingdom uses
supplementary data sources to adjust statistics derived from surveys,
namely data on asylum seekers, removals and long-term visitor switchers
(visitors who became migrants) from the Home Office, plus data on
migration flows from and to Ireland provided by the Irish Central Statistical
Office. In France, as already mentioned, the newly introduced rolling census
is to be used to produce statistics on international immigration of EEA
citizens (including French citizens). Finally, a specific data collection is
carried out in Malta. People who intend to settle in Malta have to declare at
Customs goods that are taken into Malta unless these items are deemed to
be their personal effects. An additional form is completed at that time, which
is transferred to the Statistical Office for producing statistics on international
immigrations.
Best source of reliable statistics on migration flows
A centralised, computerised, comprehensive and complete population
registration system providing for the continuous recording of information
on each member of the target population seems to be the best source of
reliable statistics on migration flows, providing the rules related to
registration are followed by migrants. The same statistics can usually be
derived from local population registers or based on forms (administrative or
statistical) filled in when changes of residence are registered. However the
use of local population registers or statistical forms is much more complex
and may have a negative impact on the overall reliability of the data
collected. If there is no administrative data source covering the whole
population, or the available data on some population categories are
considered unreliable, other registers may be used that contain only subsets
of the population, e.g. aliens registers or residence permit databases.
Combining different administrative registers is an appropriate alternative
208
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
method of meeting the EU Regulation’s requirements. In the absence of
administrative data sources, some countries rely on statistical surveys
carried out during border crossings or among households inside the
country. Some information on international migration flows can also be
derived from population censuses, but this source has a number of wellknown limitations. For instance, it is carried out only at long intervals,
accommodates only a small number of questions and is not able to capture
all migration events that occur between enumerations. Therefore it cannot
constitute a source of annual statistics on international migration. Moreover,
only international immigrants can be identified; international emigrants no
longer form part of the population being enumerated.
3. Availability of statistics requested by the EU Regulation
The scope of international migration statistics produced by each NSI,
based on the data sources described above, varies considerably. The delivery
of some statistical tables is constrained by factors such as the lack of relevant
and appropriate characteristics in a data-collection system, the low reliability
of the data and the existence of legal restrictions on the dissemination of
some personal information. Comparative Table 15 gives details of the
availability of the data requested by the EU Regulation.
The figures on total immigration and emigration flows are available, with
only a few exceptions where there is no source for the data or its reliability is
considered to be very low. For example, there are no statistics on immigrants
or emigrants in Greece, while in Estonia the NSI decided not to publish
international migration statistics due to the low quality of the data. In
addition, France does not have any statistics on emigration. Emigration
statistics in Malta refer only to the emigration of nationals to the United
Kingdom. Immigration statistics in France and Portugal do not cover
nationals. Statistics derived from surveys (in Ireland and the United
Kingdom) are affected by high estimation errors due to small samples. This
refers more specifically to disaggregations by citizenship, country of birth
and country of previous/next residence, and in the United Kingdom, by age.
The most widely available tabulation of international migration statistics
is that of immigrants by citizenship. The large majority of EU MS, with the
exception of Estonia and Poland, produce this table. In Estonia the problem
of the very low quality of the data affects all the information on international
migration and no tables are produced. In Poland, for the same reason, data
on international migration by citizenship is not produced. Statistics on
immigrants by citizenship are not currently available in Greece, although
they will be produced from the residence permit database in the near future.
209
T H E S I M
As in France and Portugal, these statistics will cover only third-country
nationals.
There are more problems related to data on international immigration by
country of birth and country of previous residence. Statistics on immigrants
by country of birth are neither currently produced nor planned for the near
future in Greece, France, Cyprus, Germany and Poland. In Greece, Cyprus
and France this information is not gathered. However in Cyprus the
inclusion of an appropriate question in the passenger survey should not
present any difficulties. In Poland, only information on the place of birth is
collected, but the derivation of the country of birth is not straightforward
due to numerous historical changes in the national territory. In Germany,
information on the country of birth is available in the population register,
but the data are of insufficient quality and the coding scheme varies between
different local population registers. In compliance with the national
regulation on population statistics, they are not transmitted to the NSI. In
Portugal, statistics on immigration by country of birth are produced only for
foreigners. Although statistics on immigrants by country of birth are not
currently available in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Luxembourg,
Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, these countries intend to produce them in
the near future. In Austria, where the Central Population Register has
recently been created, the country of birth variable needs to be collected
from local population registers because this information was not available in
electronic format in all municipalities when the local registers were
centralised. In Belgium, statistics on immigration by country of birth are not
currently produced although the data are available and are considered to be
of good quality.
Information on the country of previous residence is not collected at all or
is incomplete in several countries. In particular, it is missing in Greece and
France for both nationals and non-nationals, in Slovenia for non-nationals
and in Hungary for nationals (information is gathered on non-nationals in
Hungary, but is incomplete). Luxembourg does not publish these statistics
due to incomplete registration of information on the country of previous
residence. In Belgium, the country of previous residence is considered a
sensitive topic and is not included in the so-called legal variables that are the
only characteristics allowed to be disseminated by the NSI.
The availability of statistics on international emigration by citizenship,
country of birth and country of next residence in EU MS is generally similar
to that on international immigration. However, some countries that produce
immigration data based on residence permits, namely Greece and France, do
not have emigration statistics. Portugal overcomes this problem by
conducting a special survey.
210
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Statistics on flows of foreigners (and therefore total flows as well) by
country of previous/next residence need special attention. Some general
assumptions are often made by NSI: emigration statistics are derived from
the dates of expiry of residence permits and when information on country of
origin or destination of foreign migrants is missing the country of
citizenship is considered. In Lithuania the country of next residence when a
residence permit expires is taken to be the country from which the foreigner
came.
In addition to registered emigration, some countries (e.g. Belgium,
Denmark and the Netherlands) include a special category called
administrative corrections for the emigrations of both nationals and nonnationals that are either declared ex post or are discovered not to have been
declared (when the individual is administratively deregistered). This
category relates to emigrations that often occurred during a previous year,
and therefore should not be considered as emigrations for the current year of
observation. Most of these administrative corrections, by their very nature,
cannot be disaggregated by country of next residence; in practice they are
usually included in the emigration statistics and the country of destination is
left unknown.
4. Reliability of data on international migration flows
The availability of statistics is not an end in itself. Even if data are
available, their poor quality may render them useless. In this section one key
aspect of data quality is addressed, namely reliability or compliance with the
national definition (which is itself not necessarily in agreement with the
internationally recommended definition). If a non-harmonised definition is
applied, but the data collection is meticulous, the data are classified as
reliable. In such a situation data users can trust the available statistics and
there is an exact correspondence between concepts underlying the data and
the statistics produced.
There are two main factors that make international migration statistics
unreliable. The first is the under-registration of migrations, which applies in
particular to countries where data-collection systems rely on selfdeclarations of international movements. The second relates to data
coverage: the data-collection system used in a country may not cover the
whole target population and so some subsets may be excluded from the
statistics. This does not refer to a situation in which, for example, data are
collected on foreigners only, but to one in which some of the people
included in the definition are excluded from the data-collection procedure
211
T H E S I M
(see below). In addition, data may be unreliable if a lot of errors arise during
their processing.
As discussed above when dealing with availability problems, the
majority of international migration statistics in EU MS are derived from
population registers. No doubt, deficiencies in registration have the most
significant influence on data reliability. People do not register or deregister
because there is no such requirement, or even if there is, the administrative
rules are not strictly applied. The willingness to report changes of place of
residence varies from one country to another, but everywhere people take
into account the advantages and disadvantages of being or not being
registered. In general, there is more interest in registering arrivals than
departures. There-fore, in any given country, immigration statistics are
generally more reliable than emigration statistics.
Data based on sample surveys are insufficiently reliable because of
estimation errors and the generally high volatility observed in the time
series. Statistics on international migration flows based on the issue or
expiry of residence permits should be reliable, because the fact of issuing a
permit is usually well documented in the residence permit database.
However residence permit data refer only to third-country nationals.
Moreover emigration statistics based on the expiry of residence permits
cover only people with temporary residence permits, and the timing of their
emigration may be earlier than the expiry of the residence permit. Finally, it
should be noted that everybody who effectively immigrates or emigrates
should be taken into consideration (including accompanying children), not
only the family members who possess residence permits.
As regards data coverage, flows of undocumented migrants are not
included. Only Spain includes some illegal migrants in their official statistics
on international immigration when these persons present themselves to be
registered in the local Padrón. Theoretically, some illegal migrants may also
be covered by the international passenger surveys carried out in Cyprus and
the United Kingdom. In general, asylum seekers are included only when
they have been granted refugee status and received a temporary or
permanent residence permit. In Germany, Spain, Austria and the
Netherlands asylum seekers are recorded in the population register at an
earlier stage of the asylum procedure, and at the same time they are
included in immigration statistics (after six months of legal stay in the
Netherlands, and immediately in the three other countries). In Cyprus and
Ireland they are covered by statistics based on surveys but this is not true of
the ‘International Passenger Survey’ in the United Kingdom. This problem is
solved by using Home Office estimates to correct the survey and produce
immigration statistics. By contrast, asylum seekers are never included in
212
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
migration statistics in Hungary and Portugal, even after they have been
granted refugee status.
Students are another group of people who are in a grey area of the
registration of international migrations. Not all EU students are included in
the population registers of the receiving country and deregistered from
those of the sending country. Those who do not report their emigration or
immigration will not appear in the related statistics. For students originating
from third countries the information is more reliable, as all these students
need to acquire a specific residence permit. Bilateral agreements between EU
MS or a new EU directive may help to clarify this situation by stipulating
explicitly when a student does and does not have to be registered in his or
her place of study.
In some cases over-coverage, rather than under-coverage, can be
observed. For instance, foreigners born in Portugal are included in the
immigration statistics. Nevertheless, the most important problem remains
under-coverage. This may reduce all migration flows by a factor of ten and,
in some cases one hundred, as will be shown later in this chapter.
The consistency of international migration statistics available in different
databases and publications is a separate concern. When different figures are
published in different statistical databases for a given country, doubts are
raised about the quality of the data. The THESIM project compared the
figures in the Eurostat database, the DG JLS Annual Reports on Asylum and
Migration, the ‘Joint Questionnaire Eurostat-UNSD-UNECE-CoE-ILO
Questionnaires on International Migration Statistics’, the CoE publications
‘Recent demographic developments in Europe’, figures from official
websites of NSI, SOPEMI reports and the EUROSTAT project ‘Quality
review of MIGRAT in New Cronos’ for total immigration and emigration
1999-2002 in for each country. The total flow statistics were highly consistent
across time and across all the sources inspected in the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia and Sweden.
However significant problems were noted in Latvia, Portugal, Ireland and
Italy. More or less frequent inconsistencies were detected in other countries,
or the figures were missing. According to this investigation the most
frequent sources of inconsistencies were:
ƒ differences between provisional and final data;
ƒ differences in coverage as data were provided by different bodies
and some misunderstanding of the content of the request occurred,
mainly when the NSI was not involved;
ƒ the occasional use of the wrong reference date for the data. Adequate
metadata are clearly essential, including information on the
213
T H E S I M
provisional or definitive status of the information, the name of the
provider, the data source and the definitions used.
5. Comparability of data on international migration flows
Despite existing recommendations from the UN and the EU, the
definitions of international migrants vary significantly between countries,
within countries over time, and between different sources of statistical
information. Moreover, the definitions of immigration and emigration that
are applied in a particular country do not necessarily match in terms of the
time criterion (Comparative Table 16). As discussed above, the reliability of
the data collection also varies between countries, and within countries
between immigration and emigration according to the population
concerned. The most important comparability problems are discussed here,
with respect to the application of the EU Regulation.
The main sources of variation in definitions used in EU MS are the
differences in the concepts of ‘place of residence’ and ‘duration of stay’ that
are applied to determine who is an international migrant. Because the
datasets are usually not accompanied by detailed methodological
information these concepts remain a relatively uncharted area for most data
users.
Most countries base their definitions of international migration on a
change of country of residence. In some cases this is the only concept
underlying the definition. A variety of possible interpretations of and
nuances in the term ‘country of residence’ can result in a lack of clarity in the
statistics. As explained in Chapter 3, it can be interpreted from a legal (de
jure) or an actual (de facto) point of view. In the former, the laws and
regulations binding in the country in question specify requirements that
have to be fulfilled in order to become a resident. The conditions differ
between nationals and non-nationals, and within non-nationals there are
two distinct groups (namely foreigners with the right to free movement, and
others). In fact, nationals have an unconditional right of residence in their
country of citizenship, whereas the rights of foreigners are hedged in with
conditions. Nationals may still be counted as part of the population of their
country of citizenship even after they have been living abroad for a number
of years, but having a place of residence in a country does not necessarily
mean a physical presence on its territory. Thus in some countries nationals
cannot be migrants unless their actual presence and absence are considered.
From the de facto perspective, residence is directly connected to presence in a
country. Usually, presence must be for a specified minimum period of time.
214
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Therefore, time should be considered as a supplementary concept to that
of residence. However, the level of concreteness differs across countries. On
the one hand, the definitions currently in use often specify that international
migration takes place when there is a change in the country of residence for
a minimum period of time. Such a period is precisely defined. On the other
hand, some countries take only permanent changes of residence into
account, although permanent does not necessarily mean the same in
different countries. Its meaning can be understood literally, or as equivalent
to long-term.
When a precise period is used, another problem arises related to the
distinction between intended and actual duration. The use of the actual
duration concept means that the production of statistics would be
systematically delayed by the period used as the time criterion in the
definition of migration. Currently, all countries which specify a precise
period use the intended duration7. Therefore, an assumption is made that
the intended duration will become the actual one. However, for nonnationals the intended duration is usually limited to the period specified in
the authorisation to stay. Very often, the statutory length of stay is used
instead of the immigrant’s real intentions. This approach has some
advantages. The legal time is objective and easy to record accurately by the
receiving country. However, the actual presence of foreigners in the country
often differs from that given by their initial authorisation to stay. Foreigners
may leave the country long before their permits expire, or their permits may
be renewed and they may stay longer.
Details of the time criterion used in the definitions of international
immigrants and emigrants in the twenty-five countries of the EU and
information on the compatibility of the statistics with the Regulation are
presented in Comparative Table 16. The figures are given separately for
nationals and non-nationals, and non-nationals are further subdivided into
EU citizens and third-country nationals.
The threshold durations used by countries differ widely. On the one
hand, there are countries where the duration of residence is of no relevance
because any move in or out of a dwelling should be registered and
deregistered and will be directly reflected in the statistics. On the other
hand, there are countries where only movements for an ‘infinite’ duration
(i.e. settlement migration) are counted. Within these extremes, the duration
of stay criterion applied in migration statistics across the EU is usually set to
a period between three months and one year. The one-year criterion is
7 In the Czech Republic the actual duration of stay was used for the immigration statistics for
2001 and 2002.
215
T H E S I M
requested by the EU Regulation, and only Cyprus and the United Kingdom
(which compile their statistics on international migration flows from sample
surveys conducted during border controls) currently apply this definition
consistently. In Finland and Sweden, where the one-year criterion is applied
as a general rule, it is not followed for emigration to other Nordic countries
(where the rule of the country of immigration is applied, according to the
Nordic Agreement). However these two countries, as well as most other
countries using population registers, would be able to deliver statistics using
the twelve-month rule on an ex post basis.
Related to the different time criteria used by countries, there are different
practices concerning the inclusion of short-term migrations in international
migration statistics. Practice in this area may differ when statistics on nationals, other EEA citizens and non-EEA citizens are produced. In fact it is
frequently difficult to estimate the level of coverage of short-term
migrations, as many countries do not specify the duration of stay of
migrants into or out of their territory.
Investigations undertaken as part of the THESIM project show that
fourteen countries could present statistics on ex post actual stays in the
country or abroad, and could therefore fully comply with the UN definition
on long-term migration. With the addition of two countries that could
produce these statistics for all non-nationals, and four that could do so for
the immigration of non-EEA citizens, twenty out of twenty-five countries
could at least produce immigration statistics for third-country nationals
based on the UN’s definition of long-term migration. For a variety of
reasons, including the early date of publication and the constraints
concerning legal and financial matters, some countries have not as yet been
able to implement these existing possibilities.
As well as discrepancies in the definitions of crucial concepts described
above, there are a number of other problems that considerably hinder the
international comparability of flow data. Time-related issues are
predominant. First, migration events are counted at various dates. For
immigration this might be the date of issuing a permit, the date of arrival or
the date of reporting for registration; for emigration, the date of expiry of a
permit, the date of reporting the departure or the date of departure are
variously used. Secondly, in some cases a reference period other than a
calendar year might be applied (e.g. April to April in Ireland). In addition,
when a very short (or no) duration of stay criterion is employed, an
individual may migrate several times during the reference period. All of
these events are counted separately in the international migration statistics.
When the one-year time limit is strictly applied and the data are collected on
an annual basis, only one migration (immigration or emigration) can be
216
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
counted for a given migrant and, accordingly, there should be no difference
between the number of migrants and the number of migrations.
This analysis leads to the general conclusion that currently available data
on international migration flows are still far from being internationally
comparable. This is evident at intra-EU level when data on flows between
pairs of EU MS, reported by both the country of origin and the country of
destination, are compared. In fact, data collection on international migration
is unique in demography because the same phenomenon, the same events
(international migrations) and the same people (international migrants) are
counted by two different countries in two completely different datacollection systems. The emigration figures produced by sending countries
and the immigration figures collected by receiving countries should be
similar if the two data-collection systems use identical definitions and the
data are reliable. The idea of using a double-entry matrix for comparing
these figures is more than thirty years old8.
Comparative Table 17 displays the double-entry matrix for migration
flows between EU MS in 2002. Each cell includes, for a given migration flow
from country A to country B, both the number of emigrations recorded in
country A and the number of immigrations registered in country B. In this
way, the two figures in the same cell are directly comparable. Here are the
general conclusions based on the 2002 matrix:
ƒ Belgium, Estonia, Greece, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary,
Malta and the UK submitted no data at all (except that Ireland and
Malta provided immigration and emigration data with the UK, and
Malta also provided immigration data from Italy). As a consequence
56 cells include no data at all, either for emigration or for
immigration9.
ƒ By contrast, both figures are available for 277 migration flows. This
means that it is possible to compare the statistics for 46% of all cases.
134 cells include only immigration data, and the remaining 133 cells
only emigration data10.
ƒ In the 277 cells where both figures are available, the total number of
immigrations exceeds the total number of emigrations (508,800
immigrations compared to 448,636 emigrations). This does not
8 Such double-entry matrices have been produced annually by UNECE since 1972 and more
recently by Eurostat. The two main proponents of using this tool to estimate the level of
harmonisation of international migration flows are John Kelly (1987) and Michel Poulain (1999).
9 The Luxembourg and UK data are also available for some years.
10 Please note that the equal number of cells with either immigration data or emigration data
may be explained by the fact that countries providing immigration data have also emigration
data.
217
T H E S I M
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
necessarily mean that immigrations are systematically better
recorded than emigrations, as it may also be a consequence of better
recording (of both immigration and emigration flows) in traditional
countries of immigration.
A comparison of immigration and emigration figures in the 230 cells
with non-zero figures shows that 135 of the figures are higher for
immigration than for the corresponding emigration. The reverse is
true in 95 cases (41% of the total).
A difference between immigration and emigration figures of less
than 25% might be considered an acceptable level of reliability. Only
37 cells are in this favourable situation. This represents only 16% of
all the pairs of migration figures compared and a little more that 5%
of all intra-EU migration flows.
The inter-Nordic flows between Denmark, Finland and Sweden
show the most consistency between immigration and emigration
figures. This is explained by the Inter-Nordic agreement, which
imposed the rules of the country of immigration on the synchronised
registration or inter-Nordic migrants in both sending and receiving
countries. The remaining differences may be attributed to dual
citizenship and time delays for migrations occurring at the end of the
year.
In 53 cells (23%) the emigration figure exceeds the corresponding
immigration figure by a factor of more than two, while in 87 cells
(38%) the immigration figure is more than twice the emigration one.
In total about two out of three migration flows are in this
unfavourable situation. Some comparisons are even worse: for
example, Spain recorded only 122 emigrations to Denmark, whereas
Denmark enumerated 1,613 immigrations from Spain, Slovak
Republic recorded 219 emigrations to Germany, compared to the
11,600 immigrations from the Slovak Republic registered in
Germany.
Germany reports a larger number of both immigrations and
emigrations than all other countries. Next, but far behind, come
Denmark, Netherlands and Austria. The Slovak Republic, Portugal,
Poland and Slovenia record the smallest number of both
immigrations and emigrations. Part of the explanation for these huge
differences may be found in variations in the definitions and time
criteria used. In fact, Germany records immigration and emigration
strictly within eight days of its occurrence. Most other countries have
longer time criteria or no criterion at all, and in this situation most
migrants who consider their move to be temporary do not report it.
218
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
The absence of a time criterion thus has a negative impact on the
reliability and coverage of the data collection.
ƒ Moreover, in countries where the data collection and the definitions
used are not the same for nationals, other EU citizens and thirdcountry nationals, the figures should be done separately for the
citizens of the sending country, those of the receiving country, other
EU citizens and third-country nationals.
ƒ Finally, the large differences observed between countries are
considered to be mainly due to problems of coverage. Differences in
definition can explain only small differences between countries11.
Accordingly, we may conclude that the harmonisation of definitions
is necessary to improve the overall comparability of international
migration data within the EU but is not sufficient to eradicate all the
problems. The primary requirement is a global improvement of the
reliability of registration and data-collection processes.
This investigation of the intra-EU double-entry migration matrix
demonstrates the weak comparability of the available data. The same
comparability problems probably affect data on the international migration
of EU citizens outside the EU, as the same rules and practice are in force.
Fortunately, the immigration of third-country nationals is better recorded in
most EU MS as the residence permit database is used (directly or indirectly)
to measure these flows. However this is not true for emigration.
The above conclusions on the comparability of international migration
flows by country of origin or country of destination are probably also valid
for international migration by citizenship or country of birth. However no
direct check is possible.
Conclusion
An urgent need for international migration statistics coincides with an
unsatisfactory degree of availability, reliability and comparability of data on
international migration flows. The comparability problems occur at different
stages of the procedures used to produce immigration and emigration
statistics. Firstly, different data sources are used to collect statistical
information. Usually, statistics on international migration flows are byproducts of information collected for administrative purposes and as such
their coverage and possible tabulation are limited by the scope of the
11 Some checks have been carried out by the THESIM team in Sweden, Denmark and Belgium
that show that differences in the time criterion can be responsible only for differences of less
than 25%.
219
T H E S I M
information gathered for these administrative purposes. Registered
migration events and recorded characteristics depend in turn on national
migration policy, while the level of under-registration of international
migrations depends on the existence of incentives and disincentives
prompting compliance with registration rules.
Undoubtedly the problem of defining international migrants and
migration is of great importance. The numerous discrepancies in basic
concepts applied in identifying migrants and migration are one of the main
reasons that international flow statistics are not comparable. But the
problems of coverage, and particularly under-registration of migration, are
the most important and the situation is worsened when no fixed time
criterion is used for the self-declaration of migration. The review of the
availability, reliability and comparability of the data on international
migration flows which is to be required under the EU Regulation showed
very diverse situations in the twenty-five EU MS. However it also suggested
ways in which the data could be improved so as to comply with the EU
Regulation or at least to clarify the differences between the data requested
and those produced.
In order to improve the overall situation, the need for a fixed time
criterion for identifying immigration has been highlighted as of great
importance. A twelve-month period should be recommended, alongside the
EU Regulation, even if the threshold of three months would probably be
more effective in terms of coverage and reliability.
Most efforts should be focused on the registration of emigration, of both
nationals and non-nationals, by facilitating the administrative procedure and
by introducing incentives for both the people concerned and the local
administration to register the move. For migration between EU MS, the EU
Directive lays down that the registration of immigration is compulsory in
the receiving country; the declaration of emigration and deregistration in the
sending country should also be made compulsory. Following the experience
of the Nordic countries, an exchange of information between EU MS would
be really helpful in improving statistics on migration within the EU. For
emigrations outside the EU, the registration of nationals in consulates
abroad should be encouraged by providing concrete advantages to the
migrant. This information should then be systematically transferred to the
central population registration system and used to deregister the migrant
from his or her previous place of residence.
For third-country nationals, the residence permit database is the most
reliable source of data for immigration if only the first permit issued is
considered. It is more difficult to estimate emigration by using this data
source. Generally speaking, the information on the expiry of residence
220
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
permits should be systematically transferred to the population registration
system and used as the starting point for investigating and possibly
deregistering emigrations that have not been self-declared. It would also be
possible to register the emigration when the external border of the EU is
crossed by checking the residence permit. However this would involve the
exchange of information between all EU MS, as emigrants may be usually
resident in one EU country but leave the EU through a border in another EU
country.
221
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 14. Data sources of statistics on international migration flows
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
FOR
IE
X
X
X
X
X
X
[X]1
[X]
Sample
survey
NAT
FR
X
X
FOR
ES
NAT
EL
X
X
X
X
X
X
FOR
EE
NAT
DE
Alien
Register or
residence
permits
database
FOR
DK
Statistical
forms
NAT
CZ
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM3
IM
EM
Local
Population
Registers
FOR
BE
Central
Population
Register
NAT
IMmigration
or EMigration
X
X
[X]
[X]
[X]
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X2
X
X
[X]
X
X
222
X
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FOR
X
X
NAT
UK
X
X
Sample
survey
FOR
SE
NAT
FI
FOR
SK
NAT
SI
X
X
FOR
PT
Statistical
forms
Alien
Register or
residence
permits
database
NAT
PL
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
Local
Population
Registers
FOR
AT
Central
Population
Register
NAT
IMmigration
or EMigration
X
[X]
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 [X]
means that this data source could be available or expected to be used in the future.
Statistical forms filled in by persons who intend to settle in Malta. Data collection is organised by
custom authorities in co-operation with the statistical office.
3 The only available information to produce emigration statistics is that on Maltese emigrants requesting
permission for permanent settlement in the United Kingdom, received from the British High
Commission.
2
223
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 15. Availability of statistics on international migration flows1
Age
Sex
Total
Sex
EE
Age
DE
Total
DK
Additional
dimension
Sex
CZ
Additional
dimension
Total
By country of
previous/
next residence
Additional
dimension
By country of birth
Age
BE
By citizenship
Total
IMmi
gration
or
EMigration
+
+
+
+
-[+]
-[+]
-[+]
-L,Q
-L,Q
-L,Q
+
+
+
+
-[+]
-[+]
-[+]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
IM
-[f:+]
-[f:+]
-[f:+]
-[f:+]
-
-
-
-
-
-
EM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IM&
EM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
IM
n:-f: +
n:- f:±
[+]
n:- f:±
[+]
n:- f:±
[+]
-
-
-
-
-
-
EM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
±
+
+
±
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-[+]
-[+]
-[+]
-Q
-Q
-Q
IM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
n:- f:-
n:- f:-
n:- f:-
Q
Q
Q
EM
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
IM
+
±
+
+
±
+
+
±
+
+
EM
n:± f:-
-
-
-
-
-
-
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
HU
MT
224
n:± f:- n:+ f:- n:+ f:-
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Sex
Age
Sex
Total
Age
Total
PL
Additional
dimension
Sex
AT
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
Additional
dimension
Total
By country of
previous/
next residence
Additional
dimension
By country of birth
Age
NL
By citizenship
Total
IMmi
gration
or
EMigration
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
-Q [+]
+
+
+
+
-Q
-Q
-Q
-
-
-
+
+
+
IM
n:- f:+
n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+ n:- f:+
EM
+
-
IM
+
PT
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-[+]
-[+]
-[+]
n:+ f:- n:+ f:- n:+ f:-
+
n:+ f:[+]
+
-[+]
-[+]
-[+]
n:+ f:- n:+ f:- n:+ f:-
-[+]
-[+]
+
+
+
SI
EM
SK
FI
SE
UK
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
IM&
EM
+
+
-Q
+
+
+
+
+
n:-[+]
f:+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
+
±
±
+
±
±
+
1 Legend:
+ Available
- Not available
n: Information referring to nationals
f: Information referring to non-nationals
[ ] Information referring to data that might be produced in the future
Q Statistics are not produced due to low quality of data
L There are legal constraints on the publication of data
± Only some data are available:
FR: Immigration statistics do not cover EEA citizens; Disaggregation by age and sex available but not
provided;
IE: Selected countries of citizenship/birth/previous or next residence;
MT: Immigration statistics available only for selected countries of citizenship/birth/previous
residence; Statistics on immigration by country of previous residence refer to immigration of persons of
Maltese origin; Emigration statistics cover only nationals emigrating to the UK;
UK: Selected countries of citizenship/birth/previous or next residence; Disaggregation by age
available only for some countries.
225
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 16. Time criteria and compatibility of international migration statistics
with the EU Regulation1
BE
IMmig
ration
or
EMigr
ation
Nationals
Other EEA
citizens
Non EEA
citizens
IM
No time critera
3 months
3 months
P
P
P
EM
No time critera
3 months
3 months,
permit expiry
P
P
P
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
P
P
P
Permanent, no
time criteria
Permanent, no
time criteria
3 months/6
months
one year
one year
permanent/per
mit expiry
3 months/6
months
permanent/per
mit expiry
3 months/6
months
EM4
6 months
6 months
6 months
P
P
P
IM
EM
no time criteria
no time criteria
no time criteria
no time criteria
N
N
N
N
N
N
[3 months]
[3 months]
[P]
[P]
[P]
[P]
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
[Y]
N
P
P
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
no time criteria
P
P
P
EM
6 months
[no time
criteria]
[one year]
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
One year 6
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
6 months
one year
one year
one year
one year
validity for
residence
permit 7
6 months or
end of validity
of permit
[P]
IM
[no time
criteria]
no statistics
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
no statistics
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
no time criteria
one year
one year
one year
one year
validity for
residence
permit7
6 months or
end of validity
of permit
[P]
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
no time criteria
no time criteria
[no time
criteria]
[no time
criteria]
no statistics
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
no statistics
no statistics
no time criteria
no time criteria
no time criteria
one year
one year
one year
P
P
P
IM
CZ
EM
IM3
DK
DE
5
IM
EE
EM
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
Possibility of
providing statistics
according to the 12
months rule2
Natio- Other Non
nals
EEA
EEA
citicitizens
zens
LV
226
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
IMmig
ration
or
EMigr
ation
Nationals
HU
MT
6 months
IM
EM
IM
no time criteria
no time criteria
3 months
EM
3 months
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
EM
IM
permanent
permanent
4 out of the
forthcoming 6
months
8 out of the
forthcoming 12
months
3 months [one
year]
3 months [one
year]
permanent
permanent
no statistics
one year
3 months
EM
3 months
IM
permanent
permanent
EM
permanent
permanent
IM
EM7
IM
EM7
IM
EM
no time criteria
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
EM
IM
AT
EM
SI
one year
validity for
residence
permit 7
6 months or
end of validity
of permit
no time criteria
no time criteria
one year
permanent/
permit expiry
permanent
no statistics
4 out of the
forthcoming 6
months
8 out of the
forthcoming 12
months
3 months [one
year]
3 months [one
year]
permanent
permanent
one year
one year
3 months
permanent/per
mit expiry
permanent/3
months
permanent/per
mit expiry
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
one year
EM
IM
PT
one year
validity for
residence
permit 7
6 months or
end of validity
of permit
no time criteria
no time criteria
3 months
permanent/
permit expiry
permanent
no statistics
4 out of the
forthcoming 6
months
8 out of the
forthcoming 12
months
3 months [one
year]
3 months [one
year]
permanent
permanent
one year
one year
3 months
permanent/per
mit expiry
6 months
NL
PL
Non EEA
citizens
IM
LT
LU
Other EEA
citizens
SK
FI
SE
UK
227
Possibility of
providing statistics
according to the 12
months rule2
Natio- Other Non
nals
EEA
EEA
citicitizens
zens
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
N
P
P
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
Y
P
N
N
Y
Y
P
N
N
Y
Y
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
P
Y
Y
T H E S I M
1 This table presents minimum duration of stay (in or outside the country) of migrants included in
international migration statistics. The duration of stay criterion may result either from the registration
rules and/or from the selection rules applied when producing statistics.
Legend:
[]
The responsible authority or data supplier has indicated that these data may be available at some
point in the future
…/…Information refers to: foreigners with permanent residence permits/other foreigners
2 Information on the possibility of providing statistics according to the 12 months rule refer to migration
flow statistics produced on an ex-ante basis. If a country is able to provide statistics according to the 12
months rule, but only on an ex-post basis, Y is replaced by P.
3 Six months for all persons (Nationals, EEA citizens or non-EEA citizens) immigrating from another
EEA country and three months if immigrating from outside EEA.
4 Between the Nordic countries, the time criteria for the registration of emigration are related to the time
criteria for the registration of immigration in the receiving country.
5 Registration in the local population registers have to be done within 8 days after entering the country.
6 Only for foreigners who are selected to receive long-term resident permit in the future, even if they do
not receive it at the moment of the entry. Therefore, some of those people with temporary residence
permits valid for up to 1 year are included.
7 For immigrants with permanent residence permit, the criteria are the same as for nationals.
228
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Comparative Table 17a. International migration between the EU MS in 2002 according to
receiving (I) and sending country (E) (Eurostat database)
To
From
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
BE
CZ
DK
80
:
609
:
202
56
DE
4.439
:
11.150
1.087
2.889
2.700
EE
ES
FR
:
:
:
77
:
273
:
19.998
:
:
3.141
:
442
64
723
1.722
13.757
16.681
98
:
195
:
:
:
:
289
:
1.474
:
19.815
:
:
:
:
:
3.316
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
:
52
:
523
:
4.565
:
:
:
:
:
968
:
:
:
:
:
1.170
:
63
51
143
987
9.691
9
:
61
:
42
50
340
:
45
:
253
28
12
21
3.543
2.974
234
:
264
:
1.613
122
1.439
:
373
:
943
126
13
0
991
:
15.913
:
15.426
3.310
18.619
:
2.230
:
26.882
7.416
260
42
:
:
:
8
:
:
:
:
:
1
:
0
:
65
:
:
:
:
:
244
:
1.412
8.200
:
1.186
:
4.967
849
17
62
:
:
:
2.417
:
62
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
:
3
:
18
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
9.270
:
120
:
119
:
0
:
38
:
13
:
222
:
379
:
3.140
8
11
20
28
5
:
59
:
5
:
224
207
339
630
1.679
38
23
0
21
18
13.326
449
34
30
70
68
489
914
455
52
835
128
156
:
147
:
21
:
886
540
321
145
962
95
171
0
37
6
72
3
396
384
2.388
2.241
3.645
1.705
2.195
210
4.135
817
1.739
:
17.211
:
111
:
13.976
10.822
14.401
3.605
100.968
17.806
8.806
776
2.379
907
11.600
219
2.203
730
3.481
1.659
14.703
14.338
:
120
:
40
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
14
:
12
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
361
:
83
:
0
:
1
:
6
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
477
:
238
:
75
:
0
:
18
:
7
:
69
:
484
:
7.148
218
6
2.003
174
96
:
326
:
4
:
3.273
3.150
540
196
3.869
166
3.958
404
57
14
422
20
875
724
1.730
1.284
27.249
36.746
:
105
:
103
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
3.431
:
389
:
339
:
1.838
:
49
:
20
:
380
:
891
:
19.452
229
:
:
:
3
:
175
:
614
EL
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 17b. International migration between the EU MS in 2002 according to
receiving (I) and sending country (E) (Eurostat database)
To
From
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
IE
IT
:
:
:
41
:
311
:
2.634
:
:
:
:
:
1.132
:
:
1.807
:
330
211
291
777
11.376
36.535
57
:
688
:
2.316
1.256
4.894
:
325
:
:
125
:
0
:
7
:
66
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
493
:
57
:
13
:
0
:
3
:
2
:
137
:
217
13.500
0
11
63
128
11
132
64
251
:
485
:
132
:
985
1.202
936
735
3.886
302
453
0
256
145
413
36
253
183
378
477
4.843
6.344
CY
19
:
93
24
54
35
374
242
0
:
4.423
:
30
4
93
:
23
:
26
0
0
0
0
3
0
:
97
:
14
:
73
32
79
10
29
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
8
22
46
64
3.476
2.387
LV
LT
3
:
8
8
30
372
76
1.378
56
:
1
:
4
4
19
:
4
:
11
2
0
0
162
122
0
:
5
:
0
:
9
11
2
12
23
7
3
0
2
0
3
0
23
24
26
46
20
0
230
17
:
6
20
87
680
189
2.290
27
:
2
:
36
14
60
:
8
:
25
4
0
0
197
176
1
:
4
:
0
:
18
39
7
54
126
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
102
28
52
23
73
0
LU
:
:
:
5
:
131
:
1.327
:
:
:
:
:
104
:
:
:
:
:
198
:
0
:
0
:
2
:
:
:
:
:
169
:
19
:
23
:
494
:
5
:
1
:
76
:
104
:
507
HU
:
:
:
37
:
119
:
16.411
:
:
:
:
:
48
:
:
:
:
:
129
:
62
:
2
:
4
:
:
:
:
:
293
:
1.279
:
11
:
0
:
11
:
24
:
132
:
140
:
4.638
MT
:
:
:
3
:
17
:
91
:
:
:
:
:
2
:
:
:
:
19
97
:
21
:
0
:
0
:
:
:
:
:
30
:
5
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
0
:
1
:
49
152
196
NL
5.357
:
393
159
465
613
7.959
9.336
48
:
1.077
:
2.824
907
3.084
:
664
:
1.756
481
29
21
92
14
156
69
172
:
547
:
41
:
565
269
2.275
290
1.653
200
66
45
256
19
408
270
680
551
6.810
10.965
Chapter 8: Statistics on International Migration flows
Comparative Table 17c. International migration between the EU MS in 2002 according to
receiving (I) and sending country (E) (Eurostat database)
To
From
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
AT
PL
PT
174
:
1.063
377
179
233
9.403
15.929
31
:
427
:
514
134
687
:
132
:
1.386
532
17
0
67
19
99
15
65
:
2.337
:
10
:
586
493
61
:
34
1.117
27
588
2.335
78.739
0
:
60
:
63
99
247
:
4
:
251
459
4
21
5
28
40
128
2
:
14
:
0
:
83
492
156
1.538
179
:
8
8
39
128
692
11.315
5
:
11
:
1.015
1.105
552
:
45
:
268
157
0
0
5
2
3
11
16
:
27
:
2
:
332
710
37
157
32
6
2.514
525
296
0
388
282
2.246
212
226
87
487
286
932
4.197
4
0
0
10
10
11
4
37
70
190
208
1.387
SI
SK
13
:
5
19
0
30
332
2.502
0
:
2
:
5
1
14
:
1
:
68
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
:
5
:
2
:
10
26
90
282
3
0
2
0
8
6
1
0
24
28
48
100
939
2.082
1
1
0
2
15
24
22
0
231
6
:
749
14.455
1
78
86
9.820
0
:
4
:
3
22
17
:
2
:
20
16
2
0
2
1
1
2
2
:
30
:
1
:
7
100
64
1.066
29
11
0
0
2
4
0
3
9
21
16
284
FI
151
:
47
39
360
376
854
2.658
1.378
:
70
:
525
178
281
:
153
:
227
149
26
42
53
60
66
97
49
:
100
:
2
:
228
299
101
149
95
9
52
0
2
4
13
0
3.255
3.211
870
273
SE
387
:
151
57
4.250
4.337
2.699
3.876
345
:
595
:
1.166
215
877
:
351
:
508
186
59
21
189
60
261
119
93
:
274
:
29
:
780
659
318
269
1.186
174
178
0
14
44
76
10
3.532
3.591
3.120
1.759
UK
2.263
:
0
389
3.507
4.317
23.577
16.662
0
:
4.733
:
13.122
5.083
16.172
:
0
5.900
6.674
2.741
276
790
0
62
0
216
505
:
1.322
:
803
96
8.411
6.051
225
529
1.288
254
1.685
881
0
51
0
55
1.025
980
2.460
3.451
Chapter 9
Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
Yves Breem and Xavier Thierry
Introduction
Article 6 of the proposed EU Regulation requests:
1. Members States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on:
(a) the number of residence permits issued to persons who are thirdcountry nationals, disaggregated as follows:
(i) permits issued during the reference period whereby the person is
being granted permission to reside for the first timer, disaggregated by
citizenship, by the reason for the permit being issued and by the length of
validity of the permit;
(ii) permits issued during the reference period and granted on the
occasion of a person changing immigration status or reason for stay,
disaggregated by citizenship, by the reason for the permit being issued
and by the length of validity of the permit;
(iii) valid permits at the reference date (number of permits issued, not
withdrawn and not expired), disaggregated by citizenship, by the reason
for the permit being issued and by the length of validity of the permit;
(b) the total number of long-term residents, disaggregated by citizenship1.
2. Where the national laws and administrative practices of a Member
State allow for specific categories of long-term visa or immigration status
to be granted instead of residence permits, counts of such visas and
grants of status are to be included in the statistics required under
paragraph 1.
3. The statistics referred to in paragraph 1 shall relate to reference periods
of one calendar year and shall be supplied to the Commission (Eurostat)
within six months of the end of the reference year. The first reference year
shall be 2006.
1 According to the legal framework indicated in the Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25th
November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents.
Official Journal L 016, 23rd January 2004, p. 0044–0053.
T H E S I M
The first three categories of statistics listed above have categories should
be disaggregated by citizenship, reason for issue and length of validity of the
permit, while the fourth category is required only by citizenship. Article 8
also refers to additional disaggregation of statistics on residence permits and
residence of third-country nationals in a further step:
ƒ year in which permission to reside was first granted;
ƒ occupation;
ƒ economic activity;
ƒ age;
ƒ sex.
The aim of this chapter is to consider how the data sources discussed in
Chapter 4 may be used to provide the statistics requested by the EU
Regulation. We will consider both residence permit databases and aliens
registers, depending on the country. The key questions are:
ƒ the requested data available?
ƒ these data reliable according to the definition used and the coverage
at national level?
ƒ the data comparable at EU level?
In the first section it will be noted that the collection of statistics on
residence permits is not new, even if some recent improvements are
significant. In the second section, we will consider each paragraph of Article
6 separately, with appropriate comments. In the last section we will consider
the usefulness of these statistics for wider demographic estimates of the flow
and stocks of international migrants.
1. A brief history of statistics on residence permits
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
is the first international organisation to have published statistics on
residence or work permits to describe the situation in some country reports.
Since the mid-1970s, the OECD has been developing a continuous reporting
system on migration (SOPEMI), collecting various statistics on foreign
populations. The data sources suggested in successive UN recommendations
on international migrations have varied over time2. The 1976 UN
recommendations identified three major types of data sources producing
information on international migration, namely, border collection,
registration and household-based field enquiries. The latest revision of the
2 See Chapter 2, which is devoted to the development of the recommendations on international
migration statistics
234
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
UN recommendations (UN, 1998) emphasised data collection from various
types of registers of foreigners (including administrative registers) such as
residence permit databases.
As far as the EU is concerned, the Commission has introduced legislation
aimed at harmonising policies on the issuing of residence permits and so has
identified the need for the production of comparable statistics. Improving
the comparability of these statistics is now one of the objectives of the
European Commission. In 2003, DG JLS undertook a pilot data collection on
residence permits, which was disseminated through the Annual Report on
Asylum and Migration for the year 20013. This contained only one table on
‘Annual total number of residence permits issued’ disaggregated by reason
for issue. For many countries it was not possible to obtain disaggregated
data according to whether this was the first or a subsequent issue of a
permit. The stock of valid residence permits was not covered, nor was the
number of long-term residents.
At the end of 2004, Eurostat introduced a new set of statistics on the legal
migration and stay of non-EEA citizens for the year 2004 into its annual data
collection. Several new tables will be introduced. With regard to the number
of residence permits issued, the explanatory note written by the Commission
suggests that ‘it should be possible to exclude or to count separately those
permits that are renewals (not involving a new arrival or a change in
immigration status)’4. Member States should also supply Eurostat with data
on stocks of legal migrants, in the form of one table for the foreign
population and another for long-term residents. In terms of breakdown, this
proposal is slightly different from the EU Regulation, since length of validity
at time of issue is ignored, and sex is introduced as a variable in stock
statistics.
2. Statistics on residence permits
2.1 First residence permits
It appears from the first DG JLS Annual Report presented by that only
fifteen EU MS were able to provide information on the total numbers of
permits issued. Among these countries, only seven provided the figure for
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/asylum/statistical/doc_annual_re
port_2001_en.htlm.
4 ‘Developing a data collection on legal residence and stay of third-country nationals’, 15th of
Immigration and Asylum Committee, MIGRAPOL 97, DG JAI, 17th December 2004.
3
235
T H E S I M
first issues only (Comparative Table 18)5. However, as Chapter 4 indicates, it
is theoretically possible to obtain data on first issues (excluding renewals)
for most countries, as most databases are centralised and store the complete
history of successive residence permits based on PINs. Some detailed work
on the implementing measures could open up the potential of these
currently under-exploited data sources.
Statistics on first residence permits should measure the flow of persons
newly arrived in the country. This requires a rigorous approach to the
computational arrangements for identifying the first document delivered to
a foreigner, and avoiding possible confusion with renewed residence
permits. Statistically speaking, any given foreigner should be counted once
and once only when he or she actually enters the country. The risk of
misleading information is illustrated by the following national examples:
ƒ The chronological perspective of successive residence permits
should be properly preserved in the database, even when there is an
interruption in the right to stay. However some countries (Spain,
Hungary, Greece, Slovenia) only keep the current permit and
automatically remove the foreigner’s file when the permit expires.
Thus when a new application is submitted after a certain delay, a
new file is created for the person, and the permit issued is
considered as a new one instead of a renewal. This challenge to data
managers is particularly sensitive for the regularisation of foreigners
in an illegal situation. Indeed, amnesty programmes target both
foreigners who have never held a residence permit and those who
have previously had a renewal request refused but are later
regularised. To avoid double counting, the latter should be excluded
from the count of first issues and included in the statistics of change
of status (see below).
ƒ A distinction between place of issue and place of residence has to be
made in order to take into account only those people with a valid
residence permit who are actually living in the country. In most
countries the number of first permits issued within the country does
refer to people who have actually entered the country. However in
about ten countries, documents allowing a stay (residence permits
and long-term visas) can be issued before the applicant arrives. In
some of these countries (Denmark, Estonia, Austria) there is no
5 The number of residence permits issued in 2001 was higher than the total estimate of flows of
foreigners found in the usual statistics on international migration. However the restriction to
the first permit was not mentioned in the statistical request.
236
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
check on whether the holder enters the country or not. In these cases,
the statistics could be overestimated.
ƒ Conversely, the statistic could be underestimated if some kinds of
documents or categories of people are not taken into account in the
statistics on first permits. In Portugal and Poland, long-term visas are
not recorded in the database even after the holder has entered the
country. In France, the statistic of first permits issued provided by
the Ministry of the Interior sometimes excludes permits with a
validity of more than one year.
ƒ In seven countries minors are not taken into account since they do
not get their own residence permits and so have no personal file in
the database (Chapter 4, Comparative Table 6). Accordingly they
cannot easily be included in the statistics. Hence it might be
desirable to use a statistical source other than residence permit
records (for instance, documents related to family reunification
procedures) or extract the relevant information when children are
registered on their parents’ (or parent’s/parents’) file. This would
entail the use of a complicated methodology to exclude the
possibility of double counting (children may appear on the file of
both their mother and their father, and it will be necessary to avoid
counting them as new arrivals when they reach the age when an
individual residence permit is required) or underestimation (parents
may forget to declare their children’s arrival or may declare it only
when their residence permit is renewed). This would still not solve
the problem of ensuring data quality for unaccompanied minors.
ƒ A similar situation applies to data on documents delivered to asylum
seekers. Due to the fact that asylum seekers waiting for a positive
decision may receive a provisional authorisation to stay, they could
theoretically be considered within the scope of the statistics.
However in fourteen countries asylum seekers appear not to be
recorded in the residence permit database because they are not
entitled to receive a document granting them legal stay until their
application is decided (Chapter 4, Comparative Table 6).
For international comparisons, the implementing measures should define
the length of validity of residence permits included in the relevant statistics.
The comparability of the statistics also requires a common treatment of the
foreign population covered by various immigration statuses which are not
residence permits as such.
237
T H E S I M
2.2 Persons changing their immigration status or reason for stay
The request for information related to changes of status seems to be the
most innovative and important element of Article 6 of the EU Regulation
since it is focuses on the dynamics of the ‘administrative careers’ of
foreigners and not on their situation at a given point in time. This means that
the request is more demanding than other statistical requests, as it requires
the collection of data to compare successive residence permits over time in
order to identify, among the totality of renewals, those which involve a
change in the legal status of the migrant. In countries where only the current
residence permit is stored in the database, the availability of these data is
problematic. As mentioned above, Spain, Hungary, Greece and Slovenia are
currently unable to provide the required information.
In countries without a centralised residence permit database, or in which
there are several unlinked databases, indicators of changes of status may be
underestimated due to the fact that some transitions will not be taken into
account. This is the case in Portugal and Poland, where foreigners are
allowed to begin their stay with a long-term visa which is not recorded in
the main database. When a normal residence permit is obtained, they are
included for the first time in the main database. The fact that this is a change
of status remains hidden. In Sweden and in the United Kingdom there exist
several sub-databases, which make it more difficult to link successive
permits issued to any given individual. As the collection of statistics on
changes of status presupposes a longitudinal perspective, it would be useful
to test the quality of the cross-sectional estimates.
The need for comparability of statistics on changes of status also requires
the implementing measures to define this phenomenon. No identical
renewal of a residence permit is considered as a change of status; a change of
status corresponds to a change in type of residence permit. However, two
important questions remain to be answered:
Which criteria are relevant for recording a modification in a residence
permit?
Two types of change of status must be considered: a change in the length
of validity of the new permit (extended duration); and a change in the
reason for issuing the permit (for instance, a permit granted to a student
may later be changed to a residence permit allowing work). In terms of the
length of validity, three kinds of change of status may be distinguished:
ƒ short-term permit or visa (less than one year) converted into
temporary residence permit (one to five years);
238
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
ƒ temporary residence permit converted into long-term or permanent
permit (five years or more);
ƒ short-term permit or visa (less than one year) converted into longterm or permanent permit.
In terms of reasons, more changes of status have to be considered:
ƒ study converted into family or work purpose;
ƒ work converted into family purpose;
ƒ family purpose converted into work purpose;
ƒ asylum application converted into refugee (Geneva convention)
status or subsidiary protection;
ƒ subsidiary protection converted into refugee status;
ƒ undocumented foreigners becoming regularised;
ƒ national residence permit converted into EU long-term residence
permit;
ƒ other type of changes of status. This classification remains a point of
debate for further implementing measures.
What modifications are significant?
Whatever the criteria retained, it is important to note that different types
of change have different implications for the status of foreigners. For
instance the replacement of a one-year permit by a two-year permit does not
radically modify the living conditions of the person involved. Given the fact
that there is a wide range of types of residence permit across the Member
States, the picture remains diverse and dependent on national legislation.
Here are some examples. If a minor living in the country obtains a new type
of permit on turning eighteen, he or she is considered as having moved to a
new status. But this transition is unobservable in countries where children
do not have their own residence permits. Students changing their status are
granted a new type of permit without any interruption of their stay on the
territory, unless they are required to return to their country of origin to
apply for a new permit. This statistic could also include undocumented
foreigners who are regularised (or at least those regularised people who
were not counted in the first residence permits statistic because they had a
residence permit which was renewed only on the occasion of an amnesty
programme).
2.3 The stock of valid residence permits
As mentioned above, in order to produce flow statistics – first issue
permits as well as changes of status – residence permit databases need to
239
T H E S I M
record the successive documents granted to each individual. This is
necessary to distinguish the initial residence permit from subsequent
renewals and, in the latter case, to know whether characteristics have
changed. These conditions are less important for stock statistics: all
residence permits will be considered, whatever their origins, as long as they
are valid at the reference date. This statistic is elaborated by counting the
number of active personal files recorded in the database, the date of expiry
being a key variable. As shown in Comparative Table 18, these statistics
appear to be the easiest to collect. They are available (at least potentially) in
most EU MS. However they are considered to be of little importance in four
countries and are not collected in the United Kingdom or Denmark. In
Portugal and Germany an improvement in the electronic procedures applied
to residence permit databases would be necessary to obtain more useful
data. Indeed in these two countries the distinction between valid and
expired residence permits is not made.
In terms of reliability, the data should preferably cover everybody with
their usual residence in the country. For several reasons this it is not always
the case, creating an under- or overestimate.
Figures on residence permits are overestimated compared to the actual
population when the residence permit database is not properly updated: in
the case of emigration, acquisition of citizenship, or death before the
residence permit expires, the permit is not always automatically deactivated.
In a more limited set of countries overestimates could also be due to the
inclusion in the stock statistics of:
ƒ people with residence permits or long-term visas issued abroad, who
never actually enter or live in the country (Denmark, Estonia and
Austria);
ƒ foreigners holding several residence permits at the same time
(especially in countries which have several databases of permits).
Conversely the foreign population may be underestimated in counts of
residence permits. The following categories of people are either not recorded
in the residence permit databases or are not counted in the statistics,
although they are included in the information system:
ƒ minors;
ƒ asylum seekers;
and in a more limited set of countries:
ƒ holders of long-term visas (Portugal, Poland),
ƒ students (Spain, Finland);
ƒ foreigners whose residence permits are under renewal (Spain,
Hungary, Greece, Slovenia).
240
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
Implementing measures for the Regulation must define the population
covered by these statistics in order to ensure better international statistical
comparisons and national consistency between flow and stock data.
2.4 Statistics on long-term residents
The EU Directive6 defines long-term residents as third-country nationals
‘who have resided legally and continuously within its territory for five
years’, combined with a series of socio-economic conditions (stable and
regular resources, sickness insurance) that must be met in order to gain this
status. Under this general requirement such persons are entitled to receive a
specific ‘EC-long-term residence permit’ with a time validity of at least five
years. ‘A long-term resident shall acquire the right to reside in the territory
of Member States other than the one which granted him/her the long-term
residence status, for a period exceeding three months’, on various grounds.
The long-term resident may be joined by the members of his/her family who
fulfil the conditions referred to in Directive 2003/86/EC related to family
reunification. Except in Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, this
Directive has to transpose into national law by 23rd January 2006 at the latest.
This uniform European permit will make it easier to get statistics once the
Directive has been transposed. The information should not be confused with
long-term national residence permits. The statistics requested are on stocks
of long-term residents, not flows of foreigners newly recognised as having
long-term status (which should be included with other changes of status).
2.5 Availability of information on variables of disaggregation
Article 6 of the Regulation on data collection on residence permits for
non-EEA citizens requests disaggregation by three variables: citizenship, the
length of validity of the residence permit and the reason for issuing the
permit. The latter two are not included in the current data collection on
international migration and usually resident population (Article 3). These
variables are not usually required in statistics, mainly because they are not
usually kept in the population registers which, in many countries, provide
the data on international migration. The reason for granting a residence
permit is very relevant for monitoring immigration policy targeted at
Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25th November 2003 concerning the status of third-country
nationals who are long-term residents. Official Journal L 016, 23rd January 2004, p. 0044 – 0053.
6
241
T H E S I M
specific categories of migrants7. However the reasons for stay are provided
by the residence permit database and it should be borne in mind that the
legal grounds for issuing a residence permit may reflect the administrative
categories defined by the law of the country rather than the real motives for
staying.
Almost all of these variables are recorded in almost all the databases on
residence permits of the Member States. However, some variables are
considered too sensitive to be kept in a few countries. For instance,
citizenship is not recorded in the United Kingdom, nor are the grounds for
stay in Germany.
3 Links between statistics on residence permits and other
statistics
According to the UN recommendations, ‘in principle registers of
foreigners can be used to obtain statistics both on the inflows and outflows
of foreigners from a country and on the number of foreigners residing
legally in the country at a given point in time (a measure of stock)’ (UN,
1998). The aim of this section is to highlight the potential for EU MS to
develop this source of information for statistical purposes, and to compare it
to the data sources (such as population registers) more frequently used to
estimate international migration. Both sources are limited to legal migrants
(except in Spain).
3.1 The estimation of immigration flows
The statistics requested by the EU Regulation on foreign inflows (Article
3) and on residence permits (Article 6) are not fully comparable. The former
refers to long-term migration only (meaning people who establish their
usual residence in the receiving country for a period that is, or is expected to
be, at least twelve months); however there are no time criteria in the latter,
which includes the short-term component. Therefore, statistics on residence
permits will give a more comprehensive picture of foreign immigration and
7 For migration of family members, see Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22nd September 2003
on the right to family reunification, Official Journal L.251, 3rd October 2003, p. 0012–0018. For
migration for the purpose of studying, see the Proposal for a Council Directive of 7th October
2002 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of
studies, vocational training or voluntary service, COM(2002)0548 final. For migration for the
purpose of work, see the Green Paper of 11th January 2005 on an EU Approach to Managing
Economic Migration, COM(2004)0811 final.
242
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
the extent to which long-term migration differs from overall migration.
However data on first residence permits is not always a reliable source of
information on actual inflows to a country, since an individual may receive
several residence permits in a year, may obtain a permit without entering
the country, or conversely may not be counted if he or she has a special
status.
In practice, eight EU MS (Czech Republic, Greece, France, Latvia,
Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and the Slovak Republic) use the issue of
residence permits to estimate foreign immigration flows. These are countries
without population registers or with deficiencies in the self-declaration of
arrivals. For these reasons, counting the issue of residence permits may be
seen as a next best solution to estimating foreign inflows, with some possible
under- or double-counting as mentioned above. The statistics based on
residence permits are no less detailed regarding sex, age, citizenship, and
country of previous residence than those derived from population registers.
3.2 The estimation of emigration flows
Estimating outflows from residence permit information is not
recommended by the EU Regulation, but is done in six Central and Eastern
European countries. These countries use the date of expiry of the residence
permit as the date of de jure departure. Legally speaking, a foreigner with an
expired permit is supposed to leave the country. However this is not
necessarily so, as foreigners may remain illegally for a certain period of time
before applying for a renewal of their residence permits. Alternatively the
expiry date may occur a long time after the actual departure of the foreigner,
especially when permits have a long length of validity or are permanent. By
law, foreigners are required to return their residence permits when they
leave the country permanently, but there are no real incentives to persuade
people to fulfil this requirement. So the expiry date of the residence permit is
often irrelevant, even though in some countries the quality of the statistics
derived from self-deregistration from population registers is unsatisfactory.
3.3 Information on changes of status
The latest UN recommendations include a large section on a framework
for the compilation of statistics on changes of status, developing a more
dynamic view of migration analysis than cross-sectional measures and
trying to promote statistics related to people admitted for one reason and
later getting legal recognition to continue their stay for a different reason.
The UN recommendations emphasise that the most relevant changes of
243
T H E S I M
status are those which transform a short-term migrant into a long-term
migrant, with a view to adjusting the number of long-term migrants
enumerated in that year or the previous one. The number of people moving
from a short-term permit (under one year) to a long-term permit could be
added to the number of first residence permits issued for at least one year to
get the total number of long-term foreign migrants.
3.4 The stock of valid permits compared to the stock of the
foreign population
The stock of third-country nationals can be counted either through
residence permit databases or through population registers. In some
countries, residence permit databases are not fully updated with events such
as departures, acquisitions of citizenship or deaths during the period of
validity of the residence permit. The population register is directly informed
of all these events, whether the information is self-declared or introduced by
administrative corrections. On the other hand, the registration of the
foreigner in the residence permit database is in principle deactivated when
their permit expires, while this is not always the case for the population
register. Thus the figures for the legal foreign populations in the two
databases may not be consistent; nevertheless comparisons are useful in
identifying faults of the respective registration systems.
In countries where the census is used to estimate the population stock,
the comparison is on a different basis since the census is supposed to cover
the whole foreign population, including illegal migrants. If the data from
residence permit databases were kept fully updated it would theoretically be
possible to deduce the number of undocumented residents by comparing
these data with those from the census.
Conclusion
Statistics on legal migration are relevant for comparing and gaining a
better understanding of the migration policies of the various EU MS.
Currently data collection is at a preliminary stage and there is a lack of
statistics on residence permits. Nevertheless, almost all countries will be able
to produce this information in the near future, since data on residence
permits is usually stored in an electronic format in a unique database at
national level. This information source is currently under-exploited.
However some problems remain which make comparison of the statistics
of the various EU MS difficult. Comparable data require the implementation
of precise recommendations and explanatory notes. For instance, neither the
244
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
distinction between first residence permits and renewals, nor the reliability
of the stock of valid permits is clearly established in four countries. The
reliability of these statistics also depends on the quality and regularity of the
updating of the residence permit database in so far as acquisition of
citizenship, departure and death are concerned. The comparability of the
statistics in general can be altered by the inclusion of residence permits
issued abroad, and also if specific sub-populations are included or not
(especially asylum seekers and minors). Figures on first residence permits
and the stock of legal foreign population are close to the statistics requested
by Article 3. Accordingly inconsistencies could be detected by comparing
the two data series. This is not the case for figures on changes of status and
the number of long-term residents, which are totally new requests for
information. The latter is closely connected to the EU Directive related to
long-term residents, while the former may be seen as a means of evaluating
how the legal stays of foreigners develop. The Regulation does not
recommend using residence permits to give an estimate of outflows, but
some countries do use them in this way.
The introduction of the reason for issuing residence permits in all these
statistics seems to be the greatest innovation, and is directly related to
national legislation on the issue of residence permits. Therefore, statistical
analysis will require knowledge of the legal situation in each country.
245
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 18. Availability of statistics on residence permits
Variables
recorded in
the database
Statistics requested in the EU Regulation
First permits
or expired
permits
regularly used
to estimate
Stock of
valid
residence
permits
Inclusio
n of
longstay
visas or
residence
permits
issued
abroad3
Longterm
residents4
Citizenship
Length of validity
Ground for issue
BE
Y
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
CZ
Y7
Y
Y
Y5
[Y]
Y
Y
n.a
Y
Y
DK
Y7
Y
N
Y
N6
Y
Y
Y
N
N
DE
Y7
Y
Y8
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
N
N
N
EE
Y9
Y
Y
Y
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
EL
[Y]10
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
[Y]
N
ES
Y10
N
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
n.a
N
N
FR
Y
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
IE
[Y]
Y
Y
n.ap.
N6
Y
Y
Y
N
N
IT
Y
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
CY
[Y]
N
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
LV
Y7
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
LT
[Y]
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
n.a
Y
Y
LU
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
HU
[X]
N
Y
Y5
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MT
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
n.ap.
[Y]
n.a
n.a
n.a
N
N
NL
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
AT
Y
Y
Y
Y
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
PL
Y
N
Y
N
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
246
Emigration flows
Change
of immigration
status2
Immi-gration flows
First
issue
residence
permits1
Chapter 9: Statistics on Residence Permit and Legal Entry
Variables
recorded in
the database
Statistics requested in the EU Regulation
First permits
or expired
permits
regularly used
to estimate
Stock of
valid
residence
permits
Inclusio
n of
longstay
visas or
residence
permits
issued
abroad3
Longterm
residents4
Citizenship
Length of validity
Ground for issue
PT
Y
N
Y8
N
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
SI
Y 7 10
Y
Y
Y5
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
SK
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
FI
Y
Y
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
SE
Y7
N
Y
n.ap.
[Y]
Y
Y
Y
N
N
UK
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Emigration flows
Change
of immigration
status2
Immi-gration flows
First
issue
residence
permits1
n.ap.: not applicable; n.a.: not avavailable
1 Information between brackets means that information is only potentially available.
2 Information on changes of status is considered as potentially available when historical data on permits
of stay is stored in the residence permits database. That is not the case when different databases exist (for
instance when long-term visas issued abroad are not stored in the main database).
3 Countries in which permits of stay are issued abroad are included in this column. Long stay-visas and
those for which the length of validity is longer than 3 months, effectively replacing a residence permit.
4 Long-term residents are defined as persons having stayed at least 5 years in the country. These statistics
are potentially available when the residence permits database contains information fixing the date of
arrival or the date of the issue of the first residence permit. It could be also provided through the
Population Register.
5 Although the permit to stay has been issued abroad, the number of permits issued is supposed to
correspond with the number of person who actually entered the country (since the actual entry is
checked).
6 Denmark, the United Kingdom and Ireland are subject to the directive on long term residents.
7 The figure found in the DG JLS 2001 Report is probably referring to total annual positive decisions (not
consistent with immigration flows).
8 Expired permits included
9 In Estonia every change of the ground for issue is considered as a new (first) residence permit. This is
why the number of residence permit may be larger than the actual number of immigrants.
10 Residence permits under renewal are erased, thus involving a risk of confusion between first permit
and renewal.
247
Chapter 10
Statistics on Asylum Applications
Rob van der Erf, Liesbeth Heering and Ernst Spaan
Introduction
Article 4 of the proposed EU Regulation deals with statistics on asylum
and requires the following:
1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on
the numbers of:
(a) persons having submitted an application for international protection
or being included in such an application as a family member;
(b) persons covered by applications for international protection under
consideration by the responsible national authority at the end of the reference period;
(c) first instance decisions rejecting applications for international protection, including decisions considering applications as inadmissible or as
unfounded;
(d) first instance decisions granting or withdrawing refugee status;
(e) first instance decisions granting or withdrawing subsidiary protection
status;
(f) first instance decisions granting or withdrawing temporary protection;
(g) other first instance decisions granting, refusing or withdrawing authorisation to stay for humanitarian or other reasons under national law;
(h) applications for international protection having been withdrawn.
These statistics shall be disaggregated by age and sex, and by the citizenship of the persons concerned. They shall relate to reference periods of
one calendar month and shall be supplied to the Commission (Eurostat)
within two months of the end of the reference month. The first reference
month shall be January 2006.
2. Member States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on
the numbers of:
(a) applicants for international protection who are considered by the responsible national authority to be unaccompanied minors;
T H E S I M
(b) decisions to reject applications for international protection, including
decisions considering applications as inadmissible or as unfounded, taken
by administrative or judicial bodies in appeal or review
(c) decisions to grant or withdraw refugee status taken by administrative
or judicial bodies in appeal or review;
(d) decisions to grant or withdraw subsidiary protection status taken by
administrative or judicial bodies in appeal or review;
(e) decisions to grant or withdraw temporary protection status taken by
administrative or judicial bodies in appeal or review;
(f) other decisions taken by administrative or judicial bodies in appeal or
review to grant, refuse or withdraw authorisations to stay for humanitarian or other reasons under national law;
(g) requests and transfers covered by Regulation (EC) No 343/2003and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003;
(h) persons selected for resettlement in the Member State.
These statistics shall be disaggregated by age and sex, and by the citizenship of the persons concerned. They shall relate to reference periods of
one calendar year and shall be supplied to the Commission (Eurostat)
within three months of the end of the reference year. The first reference
year shall be 2006.
1. Compliance with the EU Regulation
Chapter 5 described the variety of authorities that deal with asylum in
EU MS. Apart from Greece (Ministry of Public Order) and Luxembourg
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration), all EU MS have established
special bodies for, inter alia, the processing and registration of asylum
requests. These special bodies are also responsible for the production of
statistics on asylum applications and asylum decisions. In most countries,
the NSI publish asylum statistics based on their data.
In Comparative Tables 19a and 19b an attempt is made to judge the
degree of compliance of the asylum statistics in the 25 EU MS with the EU
Regulation. It must be emphasised that, given the great variety in asylum
procedures, a prerequisite for the understanding and interpretation of
asylum statistics is proper documentation. In our opinion the majority of EU
MS still have a lot of room for improvement in this respect. Too often, a user
currently has to guess what exactly a figure in an asylum-related table
stands for. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the production of
asylum statistics according to the EU Regulation go hand-in-hand with a
detailed description of the definitions and concepts used, and changes
therein, so that users can interpret the asylum data correctly.
At first sight, the overall picture in Comparative Tables 19a and 19b is
favourable. Apart from Greece, Hungary, Italy and the Slovak Republic,
250
Chapter 10: Statistics on Asylum Applications
most EU MS appear to be able to comply to a large extent with the
Regulation. However, this conclusion may be too optimistic for the
following reasons.
ƒ The information in the Comparative Tables is based on both country
reports and a special questionnaire on the collection of asylum data1.
Because different people could be involved in providing the
information, the two sources did not always match. When it
appeared impossible to clarify the resulting ambiguities, the benefit
of the doubt was generally given to the country, in the sense that the
most positive report was chosen.
ƒ The Comparative Tables focuse on the availability of information.
However, several countries noted that availability alone does not
guarantee the production of statistics. Special (technical) efforts may
have to be made to transfer the available information into
appropriate statistics.
ƒ Only a few countries said that the distinction between successful and
pending applications by instance was problematic for various
reasons. However, it is our impression that this problem is more
widespread. The information on successful and pending applications
is thought to be frequently limited to those within the scope of the
asylum authority. It will be difficult for most countries to obtain an
integrated overview of all successful and pending cases,
distinguished by instance, because other authorities are frequently
involved in appeal decisions. Ideally, these problems can be solved
by linking the various databases. However, technical obstacles
and/or matters of competence may prevent this ‘simple’ solution.
ƒ In countries with only small asylum flows the required
differentiation by country of citizenship may conflict with privacy
considerations.
Apart from these general observations and reservations, some more
specific remarks can be made.
ƒ Some countries (i.e. Greece, Spain and the Slovak Republic) cannot
currently distinguish between first and repeat applications.
ƒ Although all countries except Spain and France can provide data on
unaccompanied minor applicants for asylum, the definition of a
minor is governed by national legislation, and may therefore differ
between countries.
1 The special questionnaire on asylum statistics focused on the degree of compliance of current
national statistics with the EU Regulation and was discussed during each national THESIM
meeting.
251
T H E S I M
ƒ It is expected that non-response to the requested data on returned
rejected applicants will be considerable. Several countries noted that
there are various ways to return, depart, disappear, etc. If such an
event is outside the competence of the asylum authority it will not be
recorded in the asylum database. However given proper
documentation (see above), most countries will be able to provide
the required information on Dublin clients, on inadmissible or
unfounded asylum claims, and on withdrawals of asylum
applications.
ƒ As regards grants to remain and withdrawals of grants to remain,
reference has to be made to the country-specific possibilities in this
respect. Most problems will be encountered in the production of
non-asylum grants because, once again, other laws, authorities and
databases may be involved.
ƒ Finally, most countries will have no difficulty in providing the
requested data on grants of temporary protection and grants to
remain for resettlement, where these are applicable. However, these
tables do not in fact relate to the asylum procedure.
Given the caveats above, it has to be stated that the requested for
statistical data on asylum proposed by the EU Regulation will be an
important step towards more harmonised asylum statistics in the EU MS.
Countries will be encouraged to eliminate current shortcomings by
improving their documentation, taking technical measures (e.g. by linking
different databases), streamlining the relations between the various
organisations involved, etc.
An important disadvantage of the proposed Regulation, however, is that
it focuses mainly on the collection and analysis of period-based data, i.e.
data that refer to calendar months and years. Period-based statistics describe
events that happen within a specified period of time, e.g. a month, a quarter,
or a year. This approach offers limited possibilities for linking sequential
events (for example asylum applications and asylum decisions). When these
events relate to different periods it is impossible to link them. This presents a
barrier to the calculation of recognition rates2.
2. The relationship between asylum and migration statistics
The question of how to fit asylum seekers into the framework of the UN
and EU definition of ‘international immigrant’ is difficult to answer.
2
See also chapter 13 on ‘Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure’.
252
Chapter 10: Statistics on Asylum Applications
Asylum seekers would ideally be included in international migration
statistics by using the same criteria as apply to ‘normal’ international
migrants, i.e. an intention to stay for one year or more for ex ante statistics
and an actual duration of one year or more for ex post statistics. If people
who were seeking asylum in a country were asked for their intended
duration of stay, most of them would probably indicate a duration of more
than one year. However, asylum seekers are not asked for their intended
duration of stay, and for many of them the actual duration of stay is much
less than a year, especially if they are refused in the admissibility procedure
or in some kind of accelerated procedure. Hence, the criterion ‘intended
duration of stay’ cannot realistically be applied to asylum seekers in order to
determine the ex ante number of international migrants. For the ex post
determination, on the other hand, the use of actual duration of stay could
easily be justified. However in practice most countries limit their
international migration statistics to the ex ante situation, so the ex post
situation is irrelevant.
Rather than the intended duration of stay, countries may include asylum
seekers who have been given a temporary or permanent residence permit in
their immigration statistics, taking the date of issue of this permit as the date
of immigration. Registration then depends on a judicial decision. An
important disadvantage is that the date of granting the asylum request does
not coincide with the actual date of immigration. In practice, the asylum
procedure may easily take more than a year to be finalised. In that case,
fluctuations in the rate of immigration are partly caused by the ‘activity
level’ of the authorities dealing with asylum requests, and this in turn may
distort the analysis of time series. One way of limiting the time lag between
actual entry and registration as an immigrant is to include asylum seekers
who are still awaiting their decision after a fixed period of time, e.g. after a
year. However this would result in a strange mixture of ex post (asylum
seekers) and ex ante (regular immigrants) elements in the time criterion.
Comparative Table 20 gives an overview of the current relation between
asylum and migration statistics in the twenty-five countries of the European
Union. The information in this table was derived from the country reports
and the additional special questionnaire. As described above for compliance
with the Regulation, the two sources did not always match. When it was not
possible to clarify ambiguities, the chosen response is the authors’
responsibility.
Apart from the way in which asylum seekers are (or are not) included in
the immigration statistics, their inclusion in the population stock is also
considered, as is the possible identification of asylum seekers in the flow and
stock of international migrants. This possibility is relevant if the socio253
T H E S I M
demographic behaviour of successful asylum seekers is to be studied. For
example, aspects of integration could be measured if asylum seekers could
be identified in statistics on internal mobility, fertility, employment,
education, etc.
Of course, the relation between asylum and international migration
statistics is also determined by the way statistics on the latter are collected.
Comparative Table 20 presents a very diverse picture. As regards
immigration statistics (flows), it appears that the majority of countries
consider asylum seekers as immigrants only from the time they are granted
a temporary or permanent residence permit. Exceptions are:
ƒ Belgium, where asylum seekers granted the right to stay are not
counted as immigrants but instead as administrative corrections.
They are therefore included in statistics on the stock of immigrants;
ƒ Germany and Austria, where all asylum seekers ought to be
recorded in the municipal population registers, and therefore
included in the stock;
ƒ Ireland, where asylum seekers are counted as immigrants when they
are counted in the Quarterly National Household Survey;
ƒ Cyprus, where asylum seekers are counted as immigrants when they
are counted in passenger surveys;
ƒ Hungary and Portugal, where asylum seekers are never included in
migration statistics, there being a separate data collection instead;
ƒ Malta, where asylum seekers are never included in migration
statistics because these cover only Maltese citizens;
ƒ the Netherlands, where asylum seekers are included if they are in
the country on a legal basis for at least six months while awaiting a
decision on their application;
ƒ the United Kingdom, where the time criterion of one year is used to
estimate asylum seekers’ contribution to the annual total
immigration flow.
As far as statistics on the population stock are concerned, asylum seekers
who are counted as immigrants are usually also included in the population
stock. In the absence of a direct link between information on flows and
stocks, asylum seekers are included in stocks in so far as they are counted as
part of the de facto population in a survey or census.
Conclusion
Given this situation, it can be concluded that the way in which asylum
seekers are or are not included in the flow and stock statistics differs greatly
between the countries of the EU. This hinders the international
254
Chapter 10: Statistics on Asylum Applications
comparability of these statistics. From a theoretical point of view, it is
difficult to recommend one method of inclusion rather than another because
asylum seekers do not really fit into the concept of intended duration of stay
that governs ex ante flow and stock statistics. This is an extra argument
indicating the limited scope of ex ante statistics. They provide only
provisional figures that should (after one year) be replaced by ex post
statistics. In these the same rule can be applied to both regular migrants and
asylum seekers, i.e. the actual duration of stay. Moreover, as discussed
above, time lags for asylum seekers do not influence ex post statistics. A
further step would be to revise provisional ex ante statistics on the basis of
the relationship between ex ante and ex post statistics in earlier years.
255
T H E S I M
Comparative Table 19a. Compliance of asylum statistics with the EU Regulation
Flows during the reference period
BE
Stocks on the
reference date
Asylum
applicants1
Unaccompanied
minor asylum
applicants2
Returned persons
after a (final)
negative decision3
Pending applications
(in persons)4
Y
Y
Y
Y
CZ
Y
Y
Y
Y
DK
Y
Y
Y
Y
DE
Y
Y
Y
Y
EE
Y
Y
Y
Y
EL
P
Y
Y
Y
ES
P
N
Y
Y
FR
Y
N
N
Y
IE
Y
Y
Y
Y
IT
Y
Y
N
Y
CY
Y
Y
N
Y
LV
Y
Y
Y
Y
LT
Y
Y
Y
Y
LU
Y
Y
Y
P
HU
Y
Y
N
Y
MT
Y
Y
Y
Y
NL
Y
Y
Y
Y
AT
Y
Y
N
Y
PL
Y
Y
N
Y
PT
Y
Y
Y
Y
SI
Y
Y
N
Y
SK
P
Y
N
P
FI
Y
Y
Y
Y
SE
Y
Y
Y
Y
UK
Y
Y
Y
N
1 Asylum applicants by country of citizenship, excluding repeat applications, including applications that
have been considered as inadmissible or unfounded.
2 Unaccompanied minor asylum applicants by country of citizenship. The definition of ‘minor’ is left to
the country specific legislation.
3 Returned persons after a (final) negative decision.
4 Pending applications (in persons) by country of citizenship distinguished by the kind of decision that is
awaited for, i.e., if applicable, the decision of the preliminary procedure, the first, second and subsequent
instance decision in the normal procedure.
256
Chapter 10: Statistics on Asylum Applications
Comparative Table 19b. Compliance of asylum statistics with the EU Regulation
Decisions
Dublin clients 1
Inadmissible or unfounded
applications 2
Grants of refugee status 3
Withdrawals of refugee
status 4
Grants of subsidiary
protection5
Withdrawals of subsidiary
protection6
Grants of temporary
protection 7
Grants of resettlement 8
Other grants 9
Withdrawals of other
grants 10
Withdrawals of
applications 11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
n.a.
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
n.a.
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
n.a.
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
n.a.
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
n.a.
Y
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Y
n.a.
Y
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Y
n.a.
Y
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
P
Y
Y
N
N
P
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
BE
CZ
DK
DE
EE
EL
ES
FR
IE
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
n.a.: information not available.
1 Refused asylum requests (in persons) because of the Dublin II Regulation by country of citizenship.
2 Inadmissible or unfounded asylum requests (in persons) by country of citizenship. This includes the
criteria ‘manifestly unfounded’, ‘safe third country’ and ‘safe country of origin’.
3 Grants of Convention or Convention like refugee status (in persons) by instance and country of
citizenship.
4 Withdrawals of Convention or Convention like refugee status (in persons) by instance and country of
citizenship.
257
T H E S I M
Grants of subsidiary protection status (in persons) by instance and country of citizenship. Because the
interpretation of subsidiary protection strongly depends on the country specific asylum legislation, it is
seen as an umbrella term for all asylum decisions that result in a temporary or permanent permission to
stay in the host country.
6 Withdrawals of subsidiary protection status (in persons) by instance and country of citizenship.
7 Grants of temporary protection status (in persons) by country of citizenship. The definition of
temporary protection is based upon the definition in the Commission proposal for a joint action
concerning temporary protection. The status may be granted to persons requesting international
protection in the event of a mass flight. People who get temporary protection are not counted as asylum
seekers. However, they may request for asylum afterwards.
8 Grants of resettlement (in persons) by country of citizenship. Resettlement refers to the authorisation
given to third-country nationals or stateless persons to reside in a host country for the purpose of
international protection within the framework of a (UNHCR) resettlement scheme. Evidently, those
‘quota refugees’ should not be considered as asylum seekers.
9 Other non-asylum grants to stay (in persons) by instance and country of citizenship. For the sake of
clarity, a distinction is made here between asylum grants based on the asylum regulations and nonasylum grants based on other regulations, e.g. the alien law. For example, the latter decision may relate
to family reunification. In practice, however, it is often hard to draw the line between asylum grants and
non-asylum grants.
10 Withdrawals of other non-asylum grants to stay (in persons) by country of citizenship. Here too, it is
often hard to draw the line between withdrawals of asylum grants and withdrawals of non-asylum
grants.
11 Withdrawals of asylum applications (in persons) by country of citizenship. These discontinued
applications may have an active nature (withdrawal declared by the applicant) as well as a passive
nature (in case the applicant disappeared).
5
258
Chapter 10: Statistics on Asylum Applications
Comparative Table 20. Relation between asylum and migration statistics
Asylum seekers counted as immigrants
Asylum seekers counted in population
stocks
BE
No
Yes, other
CZ
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
DK
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
DE
Yes, other
Yes, being an immigrant
EE
No migration data
Only in census population stocks
EL
No migration data
Only in census population stocks
ES
Yes, after a fixed period of time
Yes, being an immigrant
FR
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being in the Census or survey
IE
Yes, being in the Census or survey
Yes, being in the Census or survey
IT
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
CY
Yes, being in the Census or survey
Yes, being in the Census or survey
LV
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
LT
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
LU
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
HU
No
Yes, being in the Census or survey
MT
No
Yes, being in the Census or survey
NL
Yes, after a fixed period of time
Yes, being an immigrant
AT
Yes, other
Yes, being an immigrant
PL
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being in the Census or survey
PT
No
Yes, being in the Census or survey
SI
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
SK
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being in the Census or survey
FI
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
SE
Yes, after granting a residence permit
Yes, being an immigrant
UK
Yes, after a fixed period of time
Yes, being in the Census or survey
259
Chapter 11
Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco
Introduction
As far as acquisition of citizenship is concerned, the Chapter 6 revealed a
variety of situations, depending on national histories, locations, migration
profiles, judicial traditions and administrative organisations. The varying
national contexts affect both the accessibility of citizenship for potential
applicants and the measurability of cases.
Article 3 of the proposed EU Regulation requests that:
1. Member States shall supply to the Commission (Eurostat) statistics on
the numbers of:
(d) natural persons having acquired the citizenship of the Member State
and having formerly held the citizenship of another Member State or a
third country or having formerly been stateless, disaggregated by age and
sex, and by the former citizenship of the persons concerned and by
whether the person was formerly stateless.
This chapter discusses the statistics required by this regulation and tracks
the system used to produce these statistics. It also evaluates the availability,
coverage, reliability and comparability of the data collected.
1. Some preliminary considerations
Before discussing the production of statistics on the acquisition of
citizenship, we will outline the definitions set out in the EU Regulation. It
should be noted that international recommendations on migration statistics
do not cover the acquisition of citizenship, while those on the population
census include only a passing reference to the topic1.
1 Citizenship acquisition is a sub-topic (number 8) in the UN Recommendations on the
population census. The relevant text states: ‘82. In countries where the population includes a
significant proportion of naturalised citizens, it may be desirable to distinguish citizenship by
birth or naturalisation and other means according to the national legislation. Some countries
T H E S I M
In accordance with the EU Regulation, statistics on acquisitions of
citizenship, broken down by previous country of citizenship, are requested.
The main interest is in the number of people (new citizens) rather than the
cases of acquisitions (an application may refer to more than one person as
citizenship may be extended to the family members of an applicant on the
basis of the same decision). Whichever procedure is followed for each
individual acquisition, statistics should refer to the number of people
acquiring citizenship in a year, rather than the corresponding number of
applications.
The following cases should be excluded a priori from the figures provided
but it is not clear whether or not they are included in some countries:
ƒ citizenship acquisition by children of citizens, regardless of the
country of birth;
ƒ acquisition by the newly-born children of foreigners or stateless
persons in the country, who would otherwise be stateless;
ƒ children of uncertain or ill-defined parentage.
The general reference to the condition of having been either a foreign
citizen or stateless before the acquisition of citizenship, conceals particular
cases and limitations. All types of citizenship acquisitions occurring in a
country in a given period should be specified in the implementation of the
EU Regulation.
Furthermore, citizenship may be granted to individuals who are resident
in the country and to people living abroad. The second category may include
foreigners who are temporarily or permanently resident abroad (e.g. a
foreign spouse living abroad with a partner who is a citizen) and those who
apply for a second citizenship, perhaps on the basis of new legal provisions
that allow for this. Not all applicants abroad intend to enter the country and,
in principle, they are not considered part of the country’s usual population.
This situation has its exceptions, for example, for individuals who apply for
citizenship and intend to enter the country (as is the situation in Greece with
selected ethnic Greeks, who can enter the country under special conditions
in order to follow up their application). Other exceptions may be linked to
the time taken between the expression of interest (or application) and the
moment citizenship is granted, registered or counted, as acquisition
processes may last up to two years. Therefore, regardless of whether the
application is submitted within the country or abroad, citizenship
acquisition by those who remain abroad should be excluded from the count
(as is currently the case in some EU MS).
may also wish to include, for naturalised citizens, questions on previous citizenship, method of
naturalisation and year of acquisition’ (UN, 1997).
262
Chapter 11: Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship
The difference between the date of application, or expression of interest,
and the date of a positive final decision may be several years, particularly in
the classic case of naturalisation that is submitted for basic approval. This is
similar to asylum-seeking and other administrative processes, where a
request is made, followed by a discretionary decision (and possible appeal
procedures). Therefore, the acquisition of citizenship could refer to different
stages of the process, such as the application (or expression of interest) and
the final decision. However in the EU Regulation, only final decisions
should be considered.
Irrespective of the likelihood of being able to identify cases where second
citizenship is granted when producing statistics, the EU Regulation requires
acquisitions of citizenship resulting in dual citizenship to be included in the
statistics. In principle, in a basic interpretation of the EU Regulation, without
further specification of provisions for implementation, all acquisitions of
citizenship should be included in the new data collection, regardless of the
procedure or the distinctions applied in some countries2. Similarly, there
could be issues regarding the inclusion in the statistics of some specific cases
of acquisition due to ius sanguinis, ius soli, or ethnic affinity, when the case
does not concern new-born children or people living abroad.
A final element that needs to be looked at from the viewpoint of statistics
on acquisitions (and indeed losses of citizenship, although these are often
numerically negligible) is their relevance to other statistics on the
population.
2. Production and availability of statistics
The production of statistics on the acquisition of citizenship in EU MS
depends on the modes and procedures of case registration and citizenship
acquisition. In most countries the production and publication of statistics is
normally the responsibility of central authorities, predominantly arms of the
Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry of Justice (e.g. Greece, Italy, and the
United Kingdom)3. In some countries (Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Latvia,
2 In Italy and the Netherlands the word ‘attribution’ is used instead of ‘acquisition’ to denote
cases involving automatic procedures.
3 France is a special case because statistics on naturalisation and citizenship acquisition by
declaration on the grounds of marriage are dealt with by the Ministry of the Interior, while
statistics on other acquisitions by declaration are produced by the Ministry of Justice. In
addition to regular statistics, the Ministry of the Interior estimates the number of young people
who acquire citizenship automatically, without registration, when they reach the age of
eighteen.
263
T H E S I M
Hungary, Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden), statistics on the
acquisition of citizenship are also, or only, provided by the respective NSI.
In Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden the statistical offices’
main source of information is the population registration system. All
acquisitions are covered in the statistics whatever the reason for and
procedure of acquisition; this includes not only naturalisations but also all
persons obtaining citizenship automatically through notification. Only newborn children who receive citizenship at birth are not included.
By contrast, in Germany information on each case of acquisition is
transmitted from the local naturalisation authorities to the statistical office of
each Länder which in turn send aggregated data to the Federal Statistical
Office. In this way, statistics are made available on the legal basis of
acquisition, sex, age, place of residence, duration of residence, previous
citizenship and, if applicable, citizenship retained after becoming German.
In Hungary, information on acquisitions of citizenship by naturalisation and
on re-acquisitions is provided through statistical forms. In Austria, although
there is exhaustive registration of acquisitions by type and demographic
characteristics in the municipal registers, the Naturalisation Database is the
only source used by Statistics Austria. Output is published in tabular form
as press releases on a quarterly basis by Statistics Austria.
It is important to note that, on a country to country basis, some cases are
excluded a priori from statistics because of practical or other reasons. This
occurs, for instance, for descendants of Irish citizens who are effectively
granted citizenship by issuing them with passports without official
acquisition or registration procedures. The same is true for descendants of
Italian citizens living abroad4, for young people turning eighteen in France
and for adopted children in the Netherlands.
With a few exceptions, detailed data on successful applications for
citizenship is available in most countries. This covers type of acquisition,
previous citizenship, sex, age, place and duration of residence, length of
marriage, citizenship retained after naturalisation (if applicable) and other
variables. However, only a few countries (such as the United Kingdom)
produce statistics on the number of unsuccessful applications for citizenship
or the reason for the refusal. No evidence is available on related topics such
as pending applications or appeal procedures and their outcomes.
4 Between 1999 and 2003 about 400,000 people living elsewhere (many of them in Argentina)
were recognised as Italians. This compares with an annual average of about 10,000 applications
for citizenship granted in Italy, mostly naturalisations and spouses of citizens.
264
Chapter 11: Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship
3. Assessment of existing statistics
Almost everywhere, all the ways of acquiring citizenship are recorded,
and a full breakdown by type of citizenship acquisition should be possible.
In this way, comparable statistics (covering the same types of acquisition)
may be produced. This is extremely important for countries (such as
Belgium and France) which usually include more types of citizenship
acquisition than other countries in the statistics. There are several countries,
however, where it is not possible to obtain figures for all types of
acquisitions and then tailor the coverage of the statistics to achieve
comparability.
In most countries, the data on country of previous citizenship is generally
available and provided in the detail requested. Exceptions occur in countries
in which the provision and publication of such detail is limited to selected
ways of acquiring citizenship (such as classical naturalisation in Cyprus)
which are numerically only a small proportion of the total annual number of
acquisitions, and to countries (e.g. Ireland) in which the information has
never been disaggregated by previous citizenship in the international
publications consulted.
The following main conclusions may be reached about the statistical
coverage of the data which are currently published in the EU MS:
ƒ Acquisitions based on birth in the country for second- and thirdgeneration immigrants are not treated uniformly in the statistics of
countries where this ground applies. It often depends on the
fulfilment of residence conditions by one or both parents.
ƒ Acquisition based on ius sanguinis after the moment of birth are
usually included in the statistics, with the exception of eight
countries, which either have exclusions (e.g. Ireland, Portugal and
Slovenia) or partial reporting (Czech Republic, Hungary and the
Slovak Republic).
ƒ Despite the variety of situations, even within the same country, most
acquisitions related to birth and/or prolonged residence
(acquisitions based on ius soli after birth for the second generation) –
basically cases of naturalisation – are included in the statistics.
Among the countries that allow this type of acquisition of
citizenship, only Germany, Ireland and Italy do not include the
corresponding cases in their statistics.
ƒ Ordinary acquisitions through naturalisation and acquisitions based
on marriage to a citizen (including transfer of citizenship and
facilitated naturalisation) are nearly always included in the statistics;
265
T H E S I M
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Cyprus is an exception for acquisitions related to marriage, as details
by previous citizenship are recorded.
Acquisitions for adopted persons – minors and occasionally adults –
through transfer of citizenship are usually covered by the statistics.
Variations occur for minors in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy,
Netherlands and the Slovak Republic, because of organisational
aspects (for instance registration procedures at the local level) and
conceptual distinctions. In some countries excluding these cases
from the statistics causes a significant change in the result. In Italy,
for example, there are around 2,000 adoptions of foreign minors
annually, compared to an annual total of about 10,000 acquisitions
overall.
Other transfers of citizenship (to children or relatives of former or
deceased citizens) and extensions of acquisitions (to spouses,
children and/or other relatives) are usually included in the statistics
as formal modes of acquiring citizenship or specific provisions for
naturalisation. Among the exceptions in Italy is citizenship
acquisition by children, which is automatically derived from the
registration of their parents’/parent’s naturalisation. In
Luxembourg, the extension of citizenship to children is sometimes
not counted (or counted twice, as an effect of the separate
naturalisation of the father and the mother). In the Netherlands, the
extension of citizenship to children has not always been included in
the recent past, depending on the data source.
Re-acquisition of citizenship is normally granted to foreigners who
renounced the country’s citizenship when they acquired another
citizenship when dual citizenship was not allowed, and people who
were deprived of their original citizenship. Such re-acquisitions are
only partially, if at all, included in the statistics in some EU MS.
Spain and Italy are among the countries which do not include such
cases. In Spain re-acquisition also covers the registration of
citizenship by former citizens who have emigrated abroad and who
do not legally reside in the country. In Italy re-acquisition, automatic
or by declaration, also refers to individuals who have taken up
residence in the country. As noted above for other modes of
acquisition, in most cases the reason for exclusion is organisational.
Acquisitions based on cultural affinity related to ethnicity, mother
tongue, and/or religion are usually either completely or partially
included in the statistics. However ethnic Germans (Aussiedler) and
266
Chapter 11: Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship
ethnic Greeks are excluded from their country’s statistics. In
Germany this is based on a decision taken in 19995. In Greece, it is
not clear whether the exclusion of Greek Pontiacs from the former
Soviet Union from the statistics is due to political reasons or a lack of
coordination in the production of statistics6. In Germany, the
inclusion of people of German ethnic origin in the statistics on the
acquisition of citizenship would completely change the profile. In
Hungary and the Czech Republic citizenship acquisitions that are
based on cultural affinity are not regularly covered by the published
statistics. This refers to ethnic Hungarians from other countries
(mainly the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine), and former
Czechoslovak nationals and their descendents, respectively.
ƒ A cross-cutting category concerns the acquisition of citizenship by
individuals who are resident abroad. Definitive information is only
available through THESIM for a few countries. Belgium, Lithuania
and, in almost all cases, Italy, exclude these people from their
statistics. France and Austria may or may not exclude them, and may
change the method of publication.
In analysing nationally and internationally published series, it is
noticeable that in some countries the coverage of the statistics on
acquisitions of citizenship varies from year to year. In addition, the different
sources consulted sometimes revealed different coverage within the same
calendar year (for instance, in the Czech Republic). Apart from errors in data
transmission and the changes between preliminary and final figures,
differences were related to the different treatment of specific cases. These
included: citizenship acquisitions by Nordic citizens and through
notification in Sweden; automatic acquisitions by young people who were
born and were long-term residents in France, which were sometimes
estimated and included; extension of acquisitions in France, Hungary and
the Netherlands; acquisitions by people living abroad in Austria; quoting the
number of positive decisions instead of the number of people concerned in
Hungary; and the continuous updating of the databases and results in
Portugal. Although some differences cannot be explained, the variations in
coverage of the statistics were often found to be the most significant reason
for inconsistencies, breaks in series of data, and the general unreliability of
the data.
For people obtaining automatic citizenship together with recognition of their status.
Greek Pontiacs are granted Greek citizenship by the regional authorities through a specific
procedure. Albanian citizens are normally treated separately, and excluded from citizenship.
5
6
267
T H E S I M
The comparability of statistics in time and between countries is limited
by the changes occurring within a short period and the different modes of,
requirements and procedures for acquiring citizenship in each country.
Belgium is certainly the most pertinent illustration of the limits to
comparability. Over a period of about two decades, acquisition statistics
reflect successively: the profound modifications to the citizenship code of
June 1984; the facilitation of procedures for people born in the country; the
elimination of differences between men and women; the reduction in the
cohabitation period for foreign spouses; the reduction of the necessary
period of previous residence; the introduction of easier and faster
procedures; and the elimination of fees.
Conclusion
The coverage of statistics on citizenship acquisition in EU MS often
changes, and publications can contain contradictory and unreliable statistics.
In many countries this is the result of multiple responsibilities – from
granting citizenship to the production of statistics – the existence of different
sources, the lack of adequate documentation and even the misreporting of
data. Where responsibility is shared, the availability and reliability of data
are generally good at each level, but there is often poor coordination. Based
on previous positive experiences, a successful strategy could be to
strengthen the role of the national statistical institutes in the collation of
basic data. This depends, of course, on the administrative setting and the
modes and procedures of acquiring citizenship and registering this change.
The priority issue for discussion and solution is which cases should be
included in the statistics. Specifying the topics of data collection for the
forthcoming EU Regulation may direct countries towards an established
method, including the possibility of updating their historical series.
However, this is clearly not possible for all countries, or may only be feasible
in the long term. Moreover, compromises will need to be made, for example
when people move abroad before citizenship is granted.
The comparability of statistics on the acquisition of citizenship remains
limited over time for the same country and internationally. This occurs for
the following reasons:
ƒ differences and frequent changes in national provisions;
ƒ the presence/absence of a dual citizenship regime, which makes the
acquisition somewhat more difficult when at least one of the
countries concerned does not permit dual citizenship, and easier
when people are allowed to keep the tie with their country of origin;
268
Chapter 11: Statistics on Acquisition of Citizenship
ƒ different acquisition requirements and procedures, especially for the
specific facilitations established in many countries;
ƒ limited or incomplete registration mechanisms for some types of
acquisition;
ƒ including or excluding some types of acquisition – mostly the
naturalisation of people living abroad, the extension of citizenship to
children, and citizenship acquisitions that are specific to each
country;
ƒ reporting the number of positive decisions instead of the expected,
and now clearly requested, number of acquisitions.
For the first factor, it is clear that national prerogatives and differences
will remain unless supranational rules are adopted. Currently, one of the
most relevant examples is access to Greek citizenship, which is generally not
granted to ethnic Greeks of Albanian citizenship. However the differences in
the other factors may be resolved through significant (but perfectly feasible)
changes to the registration of citizenship acquisitions and the production of
statistics.
The recommendations of the proposed EU Regulation include the need to
specify the exact scope of the data collection and to establish and apply a
common classification of modes of acquiring citizenship. The
implementation of the regulation necessitates the introduction of a clear
description of all types of acquisitions that can be used as an instrument in
the production of national statistics. Generally, all types of acquisitions
should be included in the statistics, regardless of procedure – automatic,
upon registration or similar, and upon discretionary decision. This clarifies
references to acquisitions based on birth and/or prolonged residence (ius soli
after birth in the NATAC classification), i.e. second- and third-generation
immigrants and other cases that are often not considered. All acquisitions of
citizenship (except new-born infants), regardless of reasons and procedures,
already appear in the statistics of Nordic countries. Finally, data collection
should move towards including only acquisitions of citizenship by people
who live in the country.
The implementation measures for the EU Regulation could include a
proposal for national statistical institutes to be given a central role when the
production of statistics depends on using different sources or the centralised
population register. In addition, nationally published statistics should match
those published internationally, or at least clearly explain the existence of
different series for the purposes of international comparability (for instance
by systematically publishing national statistics and those transmitted to the
international organisations together). When tangible improvements to the
data collection of acquisitions by previous citizenship have been achieved, it
269
T H E S I M
is recommended that the data collection be enlarged to cover other variables
(such as the type of acquisition, sex and age).
Generally speaking, countries should improve their data documentation
and the transmission of these statistics to international organisations. If the
headings for data collection follow the outline for harmonised statistics
described above there should be a generalised exclusion (or at least a
separate reporting) of acquisitions of citizenship by people living abroad.
There should also be a generalised inclusion of acquisitions based on
adoption or other similar reasons, and extensions of acquisitions. The body
responsible for international adoption could make such information
available. Apart from this, the specific changes recommended concern
selected countries.
270
Chapter 12
Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and
Removals: An Analysis of the CIREFI Data
Michael Jandl and Albert Kraler
Introduction
Measuring the number of migrants who enter a country illegally or the
number of migrants illegally residing in a country at a given moment is
inherently problematic as it concerns (mainly) undocumented and hidden
events. Statements about the quantitative extent of illegal migration tend to
draw on statistics of observed events that are usually collected for
administrative purposes (e.g. by the police and border guards) at a national
level1.
From a policy perspective, it is clearly necessary to gain a clearer picture
of the size, structure and dynamics of illegal migration across Member
States. To this aim, the European Commission (especially the DG JLS) and
Eurostat has developed a data-collection system (CIREFI) that regularly
compiles the statistics on illegal migration provided by EU MS.
To date, the CIREFI database is the only available European-wide source
of statistics on enforcement measures taken in the field of illegal migration.
As the fight against illegal migration gains increasing prominence at EU
level and as the European Commission assumes ever wider competencies in
this field, the CIREFI database will become more important in coming years.
This chapter will provide a critical analysis of the data provided by the
CIREFI database and will evaluate their availability, reliability and
comparability.
1 Note that the terms ‘illegal migration’ and ‘irregular migration’ are often used interchangeably
in policy contexts. Strictly speaking, however, ‘illegal migration’ refers to the illegal crossing of
borders, while ‘irregular migration’ covers a wider range of irregularities in the status of
migrants (e.g. illegal residence after the expiry of visas (visa over-stayers) or the illegal
employment of foreigners in an otherwise ‘regular’ situation). At EU level the term ‘illegal
migration’ is generally used to refer to the illegal entry and/or stay of international migrants
who are citizens of third countries. This approach is followed in this paper, while specific terms
are used and explained where appropriate.
T H E S I M
Until recently, the contents of the CIREFI database have not been
accessible to the public. This has partly been changed with the publication of
the DG JLS Annual Report in early 20042.
Three types of data from the CIREFI database3 are published that are
linked to illegal migration, namely statistics on
ƒ refusals of entry (1997-2001);
ƒ apprehensions of aliens illegally present (1997-2001);
ƒ removed aliens (1997-2001).
In the rest of this chapter, we will analyse the deficiencies in each of these
three data sets and provide a set of recommendations for data collection4.
1. Refusals of entry
Data on refusals of entry do not (only) count attempts at illegal entry. As
specified in the explanatory document ‘Policy and legislation on illegal
entry’ of the DG JLS Annual Report, data on refusals refer to everybody
refused entry at the border for whatever reason. The note on Belgian data on
‘reasons for refusal’ is a good example of the kind of reasons included:
Entry can be refused to aliens who:
ƒ do not have a valid travelling document (i.e. a passport and, for visarequired nationalities, a visa or a residence permit issued by a
Schengen state);
ƒ do not have any documents affirming the reason for their journey;
ƒ do not have sufficient means of subsistence, or an undertaking of
financial liability;
ƒ are included on one of the national or international ‘forbidden’ lists.
The documents are available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre
/asylum/ statistical/doc_annual_report_2001_en.htm (29.4.2004).
3 The CIREFI monthly data collection includes two more categories of data on enforcement
measures relating to illegal migration, namely data on apprehended facilitators (by citizenship)
and apprehended facilitated aliens (by citizenship and type of border). See: UN Statistical
Commission/UN Economic Commission for Europe/Eurostat, (2003). However, these data
have not yet been published by the European Commission and therefore do not form part of
this inquiry. A sixth set of data published in the first Annual Report on Asylum and Migration,
on the implementation of the Dublin Convention, refers to requests from one Member State to
another to take back or take charge of asylum applicants. However, these data refer to
administrative requests and not to actual movement from one country to another and are
therefore not included in this project.
4 The recommendations were elaborated with a view to their inclusion in the ‘Regulation on
Community statistics on international migration and asylum’ and were written against the
background of several early draft versions of this Regulation (up to January 2005). Some of
them may be reflected in the implementing measures yet to be formulated in relation to Article
10 of the Regulation.
2
272
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
Attempting entry to Belgium for any of these reasons could constitute an
act of illegal migration, but none of them necessarily does so. As Table 1
shows, there are a variety of reasons that can lead to refusal of entry to
Belgium. As a country bordering only other Schengen states, most of the
refusals take place at airports.
Detailed statistics on refusals indicate that the majority of people ‘refused
entry’ at official border posts could easily enter the country legally, but at
the moment of counting they did not fulfil the relevant criteria (for example,
they had forgotten their passports). A good indicator for this fact is the high
number of Swiss citizens ‘refused entry’ at the German border (6,029 out of a
total of 51,054 people in 2001, making them the third largest group of people
refused entry). Another example is the extremely high number of people
refused entry to Spain (869,208 in 2001), 99% of whom were Moroccans.
Most of these people were refused entry to the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta
and Melilla on the North African continent, and it is likely that a very high
percentage of them were repeatedly refused.
Table 1. Refusals of entry to Belgium by reason and place
Reason
Zaventem Airport
1999
2000
TGV- Eurostar
1999
Total
2000
1999
2000
TD-1 (no visa)
978
921
166
297
1,144
1,218
TD-2 (insufficient
means of
subsistence)
TD-3 (inclusion in
national database*)
TD-4 (no identity
documents)
TD-5 (fake
documents)
TD-6 (unclear travel
motive)
TD-SIS (SIS alert)
177
165
94
2
271
167
24
21
-
36
24
57
73
82
747
1,283
820
1,365
691
631
39
-
730
631
581
562
2
5
583
567
65
56
5
3
70
59
2,589
2,438
1,053
1,626
3,642
4,064
Total (all places)
4,659
5,363
Total given in
CIREFI database
Source: Belgian Immigration Service, Annual Report 1999/2000
4,902
5,506
Subtotal
To gain more insight into the reasons that people are refused entry, it is
therefore necessary to look at statistical breakdowns of refused entries.
These statistics are not currently provided in the published CIREFI data. As
273
T H E S I M
a further example, consider the following statistics on Austria, where the
CIREFI data indicate a total of only 17,595 refused entries in 2001. In
contrast, Table 2 gives the detailed statistics from the Austrian Federal
Ministry of Interior:
Table 2. Refusals of entry to Austria
Reason (according to Aliens Law*)
2001
8,973
915
4,189
1,082
851
46
1,506
33
17,595
§ 52/1 (no passport or visa)
§ 52/2/1 (prohibition of residence)
§ 52/2/2 (SIS-alert)
§ 52/2/3/a (public security)
§ 52/2/3/b (illegal employment)
§ 52/2/3/c (human smuggling)
§ 52/2/4 (means of subsistence)
§ 52/2/5 (financial misdemeanour)
Total
Source: BMI Statistics 2001/2002/2003.
* All § refer to Aliens Law 1997.
2002
6,888
1,499
10,557
960
959
19
2,356
42
23,280
2003
6,491
1,238
8,765
1,216
1,172
124
3,321
44
22,371
According to these data, in 2001, 51% of all refused entries were due to
the person attempting entry not having sufficient documentation (no
passport or visa). A further 9% were due to the border guard judging that
the person in front of him or her did not have sufficient means of subsistence
to fulfil entry requirements. Only about 40% of refused entry cases were
directly linked to illegal migration. However, in 2002 and 2003 this was true
for more than 50% of refused entry cases. In any case, as this example
illustrates, the total number of refused entries per country and year is not a
good indicator of either volume or trends in illegal migration. Data on
refusals of entry to any of the twenty-five countries of the EU should, as a
minimum, provide the reasons for the refusal of entry.
2. Apprehensions of aliens illegally present
All EU MS, except Ireland and the United Kingdom, provide annual
statistics on the total numbers of ‘apprehensions of aliens illegally present’
to the CIREFI database (as published in the first Annual Report on Asylum
and Migration) plus a breakdown by the top ten countries of citizenship of
those apprehended. In principle, apprehension data are the only basis for
arriving at informed estimates of the scale, structure and trends of illegal
migration in Europe. However there are several inherent difficulties and
problems with using such data for the purpose of estimating illegal
274
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
migration (e.g. data definitions, how to estimate the volume of those not
discovered on the basis of the number of those apprehended, and
accounting for distortions that necessarily arise because of the nature of law
enforcement in this field5), but these issues will not be pursued further here6.
The main problem with the published CIREFI apprehension data is,
however, more fundamental and makes their value as an indicator of illegal
migration trends highly questionable. The data on ‘apprehensions of aliens
illegally present’ do not, in fact, refer to ‘aliens illegally present’ on the
territory of most countries providing the data. Rather, they refer to the total
number of apprehensions of aliens illegally present inside the country and at
or near the borders of the country that aliens have unsuccessfully tried to
enter illegally. Thus, the data are an amalgam of data that refer to flows
(illegal crossings) and data that refer to stocks (aliens illegally present)7.
The more detailed German apprehension data in Tables 3a and 3b
provide a good example of the confusion created by total apprehension data
alone. The data supplied to the CIREFI database from the German Criminal
Police refer to all aliens who, at the time of apprehension, were in violation
of legal residence or entry requirements (i.e., they were either illegal
residents or apprehended for illegal border crossing). When the figures on
border apprehensions (provided by the German Federal Border Guard, BGS)
are subtracted from this total, it emerges that between 1994 and 2003 the
number of aliens apprehended for being illegally present within Germany
remained relatively stable at around 80,000-100,000 per year, while the
number of people apprehended for illegal border crossing during this period
declined sharply8.
Thus, as well as all the other difficulties in interpreting apprehension
data, the cumulative data (as published in the German Annual Report on
Asylum and Migration 2001) conceal one central trend in apprehensions:
border apprehensions in Germany have declined sharply in the past decade
(from over 54,000 in 1993 to under 20,000 in 2003), while apprehensions
inside the country have declined by a much smaller percentage.
5 Anecdotal evidence suggests that law enforcement agencies are frequently subject to severe
pressure to meet certain numerical targets. In addition, apprehensions may be recorded in
statistics not by the actual place of apprehension, but following other criteria (e.g. stated origin).
For apprehensions on the territory of a given state, distortion may result from enforcement
agencies’ habit of targeting particular groups or locations on the basis of probabilistic
assumptions about illegal migrants.
6 For further discussion see, for example Jandl (2004).
7 In fact, data on apprehended aliens illegally present in the country within the course of one
year do not, strictly speaking, refer to stocks of aliens illegally present at any one point in time.
8 Sources: (Bundesministerium des Innern, 2003, pp. 137-138; 2004, pp. 110-112).
275
T H E S I M
Table 3a. Aliens apprehended in Germany (in thousands) (1990-1996)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994*
1995*
125.0
131.5
Total CIREFI
7.2
23.6
44.9
54.3
31.1
29.6
Total BGS*
94.0
101.9
BGS minus CIREFI
Sources: * Bundesministerium des Innern 2003 and 2004; elsewhere: CIREFI.
1996*
137.3
27.0
110.3
Table 3b. Aliens apprehended in Germany (in thousands) (1997-2003)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002*
140.8
128.3
124.3
122.6
112.6
138.1
Total CIREFI
40.2
37.8
31.5
28.6
22.6
35.2
Total BGS*
100.6
90.5
92.8
94.0
89.9
102.9
CIREFI minus BGS
Sources: * Bundesministerium des Innern 2003 and 2004; elsewhere: CIREFI.
2003*
96.1
19.8
76.2
2.1 Further disaggregations: total apprehensions
Apprehensions of ‘aliens illegally present’ can be made for a variety of
reasons, including illegal residence and illegally crossing the state border. In
addition, there are other important reasons that should be differentiated in
the aggregate statistics. As an example, consider the figures below from the
Hungarian Border Guard.
In 2003 a total of 13,533 people were found to have committed offences
related to illegal migration in Hungary (a decrease of 16% compared to the
previous year). Of these,
ƒ 5,134 people crossed or attempted to cross national borders illegally
(a decrease of 48% compared to 2002);
ƒ 4,574 people violated the rules on foreigners’ residence (an increase
of 34% compared to 2002);
ƒ 2,690 people were found to have forged official documents (an
increase of 42% compared to 2002);
ƒ 614 people attempted to enter Hungary or to stay in the country
despite an existing decision prohibiting them from doing so (an
increase of 61% compared to 2002);
ƒ 519 people were involved in smuggling humans (an increase of 5%
compared to 2002);
ƒ two people provided assistance to prohibited residence.
Again, such distinctions are crucial for evaluating the underlying trends
hidden in aggregate data – in this example, the disaggregated data show
that far fewer apprehensions were made at the border, while many more
276
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
people were apprehended within the country and for using false or falsified
documents.
2.2 Further disaggregations: border apprehensions
Two further complications in the compilation and interpretation of
CIREFI data on apprehended illegal migrants arise, because the
disaggregated data do not show whether the category ‘illegal migrants’
refers only to foreign nationals or whether border violations by a country’s
own citizens are included and whether the migrants were apprehended for
illegally crossing a national border on the way in or on the way out.
Good examples of disaggregated data illustrating this point are data
provided by the Alien and Border Police Service of the Czech Republic.
Unlike the data provided in the CIREFI database, the statistics in Table 4
differentiate between foreigners and Czech citizens, and show the direction
taken by the migrants9.
Table 4. Illegal migrants apprehended crossing the borders of the Czech Republic
1993–2003 (in thousands)
1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
43.3 20.5 19.2 23.7 29.3 44.7 32.3 32.7 23.8 14.7 13.2
Total
41.8 18.8 17.1 21.2 27.3 43.0 30.4 30.8 21.1 12.6 11.1
Foreigners
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.7
2.1
2.1
Czechcitizens
By direction:
41.3 17.0 15.4 18.7 22.0 37.1 27.0 27.6 17.0
9.2
9.4
From Czech Republic
2.0
3.4
3.8
5.0
7.3
7.5
5.4
5.1
6.9
5.5
3.8
to Czech Republic
Source: Alien and Border Police Service of the Czech Republic, Analytical Unit, Futo and
Jandl (2004).
However, to learn more about the direction of illegal migration flows to
and from a particular country, even more precise statistics are needed. Such
data are publicly available only for a few countries but should become more
widely available. For example, the data on border apprehensions by border
sections and directions of flow from the Slovak Republic, reproduced in
Table 5, provide important insights into the direction of irregular migration
flows.
The data included in the CIREFI overview table on the total numbers of ‘apprehensions of
aliens illegally present’ in the Czech Republic are only 25,503 for the year 2000 and 21,580 for
the year 2001, with empty cells for the years 1997–2000.
9
277
T H E S I M
Table 5. Number of migration-related apprehensions* by border section in the Slovak
Republic
Number of people apprehended when:
Total number of
apprehensions
entering the Slovak
leaving the Slovak
on that border
Republic
Republic
348
3,560
3,908
Austria
22
2,108
2,130
Czech Republic
247
352
599
Poland
5,468
15
5,483
Ukraine
304
69
373
Hungary
6,389
6,104
12,493
Total
Source: Slovak Ministry of Interior, Border and Aliens Police, Futo and Jandl (2004).
*Including foreigners and citizens of the Slovak Republic.
Border with
The conclusion on the value of (published) CIREFI data on
apprehensions of aliens illegally present in twenty-nine countries is
sobering: in the aggregate, they are of little use in estimating either stocks or
flows of illegal migrants in European countries, nor do they tell us much
about the various reasons why a person is considered to be illegally crossing
a state’s border or illegally residing on the territory10. On the other hand, the
breakdown by the ten most important countries of citizenship of those
apprehended does provide certain insights into the patterns of illegal
migration.
Data requirements
Data on apprehensions of illegal migrants should be disaggregated at a
minimum according to:
ƒ foreigners and own nationals;
ƒ citizenship;
ƒ reasons for apprehension;
ƒ border apprehensions and in-country apprehensions;
ƒ directions of movement (apprehension upon entering or leaving the
territory);
ƒ border section and direction (to/from which country).
10 Conceptually, a distinction needs to be made between people considered to be illegally
crossing a border or illegally residing in a given state because they lack the authorisation
(documents etc.) to do so, on the one hand, and on the other hand, people who are considered
illegal because they have committed a criminal offence that cancels any prior authorisation to
reside in a given territory.
278
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
3. Removed aliens
The data on removed aliens published in the first Annual Report on
Asylum and Migration (most, but not all of which comes from the CIREFI
database) is deficient in several regards. Most importantly, only the totals of
removed aliens are given, excluding the reasons for removal and the
categories of migrants removed from the territory; also, the data does not
specify whether the removals were effected by the migrants themselves after
receiving an expulsion order, or were escorted or forced returns
(deportation). Finally, the data include no information on destination –
whether the country of last residence/transit or the country of origin – or
means of transport of deportees.
A cross-check of CIREFI statistics with data published by national
authorities would suggest that, by and large, only deportation figures are
included in the CIREFI database. However, some countries (for example the
United Kingdom) explicitly also include unlawfully resident aliens removed
from the territory under voluntary return schemes, while others (e.g.
Belgium) apparently do not. In yet others (e.g. Austria)11 it proved
impossible to establish which categories of removals the figures contained in
the database actually refer to, underlining the importance of providing the
necessary metadata alongside actual figures. Similarly, the CIREFI totals
given for the Netherlands differ significantly from those given in a recent
IOM study on return policies and practices in Europe, as do the figures for
Finland (IOM, 2004).
However, deportation is in itself an ambiguous category, and most
countries distinguish two or more types of forced removal12. On the whole,
the CIREFI data seem to give the total number of deportations, covering all
the different types of forced removal. In principal, two main categories can
be distinguished. The first is deportations effected after an alien has been
apprehended and/or refused entry at a port of entry/border. Very often,
this type of deportation involves returning the alien to the country from
which he or she entered the country, rather than returning him or her to the
country of origin. It should be added, however, that information on the
destination of deportees is rarely available; nor is information on whether
aliens were taken back by other countries on the basis of readmission
11 For Austria, the total figure for removals for 2001 provided by CIREFI is 11,592. The Ministry
of Interior data, however, lists a total of 8,324 deportations (Abschiebungen). In the same period,
6,338 aliens were forcibly removed or rejected (Zurückschiebung) within seven days of entering
the territory.
12 Often, the categories used reflect legal concepts rather than generic types of forced removal
and thus are difficult to compare cross-nationally.
279
T H E S I M
agreements, or whether the alien was returned to another EU MS or a third
country. The second major type of forced removal covers deportations
effected after an expulsion order or residence ban has been issued, usually
after the alien has already spent significant time in the country from which
he or she is being deported. While the first type of deportation is directly
linked to illegal immigration, the second type is not, or at least not
necessarily, and it may be carried out in response to illegal employment,
criminal offences, rejection of an asylum application, on grounds of public
security, or on other grounds, including illegal residence.
Table 6. Forced returns from Germany
1997
1998
Forced removals
26,668
31,510
(Zurückschiebungen)
Deportations
38,205
38,479
(Abschiebungen)
64,873
69,989
Total
Source: German Federal Border Guard, Annual Reports.
1999
2000
2001
23,610
20,369
16,048
32,929
56,539
35,444
55,813
27,902
43,950
Table 7. Forced returns from the UK
1997
1998
1999
People refused entry at port and
24,535
27,605
31,295
subsequently removed
Persons removed as a result of
6,61
7,315
6,44
enforcement action
Principal asylum applicants
leaving under the assisted
50
voluntary return programme
Total (= figure given in CIREFI)
31,145
34,92
37,785
Source: UK Home Office, Control of Immigration Statistics 2002.
2000
2001
38,275
37,865
7,82
10,29
550
46,645
980
49,135
In practice it is often difficult to distinguish meaningfully between the
two types of removals, as so much depends on the legal definitions
involved. The figures for forced returns from Germany and the UK (see
Tables 6 and 7 respectively) are a case in point. While in both countries a
distinction is made between aliens removed because of illegal entry and all
other deportations, the precise definitions differ. Germany effects forced
removals of the first type (Zurückschiebung) within a six-month period after
entering Germany, and aliens found illegally resident within the territory
280
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
during this period are included in this figure13. By contrast, the UK data on
deportations on grounds of illegal entry are limited to people refused entry
and subsequently removed at the border.
The UK data point at another possible area of confusion, namely the
distinction between refusals at the border and removals of persons refused
entry at the border (in most cases, airports), in regard to which double
counting is very likely to occur14. This last confusion, arising from unclear
definitions of ‘removals’ and ‘prohibitions of entry’, can also be illustrated
by the available Spanish data on forced returns. In addition to the issues just
identified, the Spanish data also illustrate another complication, as the data
transmitted to the CIREFI obviously do not include people returned on the
basis of existing re-admission agreements. If these types of data are included
in statistics on forced returns from Spain, the totals are two to three times
higher than the figures given in the CIREFI database (Table 8).
Table 8. Data on forced removals and returns from Spain
2000
Expulsions effected
2001
2002
2003
1,226
3,817
12,159
14,104
Returns effected
22,716
22,984
14,275
13,684
Subtotal (= figure given in CIREFI)
23,942
26,801
26,434
27,788
Prohibition of entry and return
6,181
8,881
11,698
14,750
Return by way of readmission
agreement
9,249
9,862
38,981
51,343
39,372
45,544
77,113
93,881
Total repatriation
Source: Ministerio del Interior, Spain.
Another variation in the statistical counting of removals and refusals at
the border is provided by statistics on removals, refusals and returns in
Belgium, obtained from the Ministry of the Interior. According to the
explanatory notes to these statistics, the data on ‘repatriations’ refer only to
removals by plane, while removals by car to the neighbouring country from
which the alien has entered are listed separately and are included in the
The published CIREFI data contain only the total number of removals from Germany in 2001
(43,950) and their breakdown by nationality by the five main groups of citizens.
14 From the published (national) data it is impossible to tell whether this is indeed the case. The
detailed investigation of metadata should give more information on this issue.
13
281
T H E S I M
statistics on refusals. Voluntary assisted returns (either by the Immigration
Service or, more commonly, by IOM) are listed separately. Moreover, as can
be seen from Table 9, none of these categories, nor the total number of
removals and refusals, corresponds well to the data listed in the CIREFI
tables on ‘Total number of removed aliens’.
Table 9. Removals, refusals and voluntary returns in Belgium
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Repatriations *
3,863
3,042
1,871
3,001
5,722
7,451
7,742
Refusals**
3,875
4,531
5,295
6,081
5,622
4,251
3,548
Voluntary returns***
1,569
1,166
2,068
3,183
3,633
3,225
2,820
Total
9,307
8,739
9,234 12,265 14,977 14,927 14,110
Figures on removals given in CIREFI
4,890
3,877
3,457
4,684 8,801
n.a.
Source: Belgian Ministry of Interior.
* Removals by plane, including unaccompanied minors.
** Including refusals at borders, the airport and removals by car to the neighbouring
country.
*** Including returns assisted by Immigration Service and by IOM.
n.a.
To summarise: not all deportations are actually related to illegal
migration. However, the data published by national authorities almost never
reveal the reasons for the deportation order. Statistics on expulsion orders
and residence bans or similar statistics (e.g. on people proceeded against for
offences under immigration law in the British case), may provide a better,
and in any case, a more comprehensive picture of enforcement action taken
against illegal migrants. In addition, while many states now ‘correlate’
statistics on residence bans, expulsion and deportation orders with the
actual number of deportations effected (even if in rather crude terms), a
medium-term goal should be to collect information on individuals rather
than on cases. This should be done in a way that allows the different stages
of the procedure (apprehension/refusal of entry/residence ban/expulsion
order /voluntary return/deportation) to be monitored, and the different
data to be related to each other. Information on individuals rather than cases
would also allow double-counting of people who are repeatedly removed
within the reporting period to be avoided.
One of the main concerns of EU MS remains asylum migration and the
return of rejected asylum seekers. For this reason, it would be desirable to
allow different categories of migrants to be distinguished, and most
importantly to distinguish between rejected asylum seekers and all others.
Several countries, for example Belgium, Hungary, Netherlands and the
282
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
United Kingdom, do differentiate between removed asylum seekers and
other removed aliens. Figures for the Netherlands (Table 10) and Belgium
(Table 11) are provided below15.
Table 10. Removal of asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants from the Netherlands
2000
2001
2002
Asylum-Seekers
Expulsion
Supervised departure
2,027
2,112
2,276
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Non-Asylum-Seekers
Expulsion
Supervised departure
Totals
7,92
7,386
9,739
12,074
5,797
7,518
22,021
15,295
19,533
Source: IOM 2004.
Table 11. Removals, refusals and voluntary returns of asylum seekers and non-asylum
seekers in Belgium in 2003
Asylum Seekers
Repatriations *
Total
1,037
6,695
7,732
340
2,999
3,339
1,377
9,694
11,071
Refusals**
Subtotal
Non-Asylum
Seekers
Other returns and removals
2,820
Voluntary returns***
209
Removal to border ****
Total
Source: Ministry of Interior Belgium.
* Removals by plane, including unaccompanied minors.
** Including refusals at borders and the airport.
*** Including returns assisted by Immigration Service and by IOM.
**** Removals by car to the bordering country.
14,100
Although related to the legal grounds for a deportation, and thus to the
legal grounds for an expulsion order as discussed earlier, expulsion
orders/deportations following the rejection of an asylum claim are in
15 The published CIREFI data contain only the total number of removals from the Netherlands
in 2001 (16,548) and their breakdown by nationality by the five main groups of citizens.
283
T H E S I M
practice often recorded under a different heading (e.g. illegal entry). Thus,
countries such as Austria or Germany that currently do not distinguish
between removed asylum seekers and other deportees should be
encouraged to differentiate between the two categories in their removal
statistics. In any case, CIREFI could include a breakdown into asylum
seekers and other returned aliens, irrespective of the proportion of EU MS
able to do so.
A recent UNECE/ Eurostat Working Paper16 suggests three main
refinements of the CIREFI data on removal. First, the inclusion of
information on the nature of the return action taken by a Member State,
namely voluntary, escorted or forced escorted return. Second the inclusion
of information on the destination of the return action (whether to the
country of origin or to a third state). A third suggestion made in respect of
aliens refused entry is to distinguish between refusals within the European
Union on the one hand and to third countries on the other. A similar
distinction could be made in respect of forced removals. The latter could be
supplemented by information on whether the removal action took place in
the framework of the Dublin Regulation or outside that agreement. The
statistics on Dublin-related requests that are already part of CIREFI are
certainly very useful in indicating trends in Dublin-related applications and
decisions. However, ways should be found to relate these to enforcement
actions taken by individual states.
The recommendations made in the UNECE/Eurostat working paper on
removal statistics are a useful starting point. In addition, however,
information on the categories of removed aliens should be included. In the
medium term, the information collected on different types of enforcement
action should be linked and be based on individuals rather than cases, not
only in order to monitor enforcement action more effectively, but also to be
able to distinguish different categories of returned aliens, including asylum
seekers, illegal entrants, and people deported on grounds unrelated to illegal
migration.
Data on removed aliens should, as a minimum, provide the categories of
removed aliens and the type of removal (e.g. expulsion, deportation order,
monitored departure, etc.).
16 UN Statistical Commission/UN Economic Commission for Europe/Eurostat, (2003),
Statistical data on illegal immigration in the European Union: A discussion paper on policy
needs and data availability, submitted by the European Commission, paper prepared by Ann
Singleton for the Joint ECE-Eurostat Work Session on Migration Statistics, Geneva, 28th-30th
April 2003
284
Chapter 12: Statistics on Refusals, Apprehensions and Removals
Conclusion
The main conclusion of the preceding analysis is that the form and
content of the statistical material published from the CIREFI database is
wholly inadequate to capture levels and trends in illegal migration processes
and is therefore – in its current form – insufficient to guide European policymaking on illegal migration. To summarise the most important problems
with the three main sets of data published from the CIREFI database: data
on apprehended illegal migrants do not distinguish between stocks and
flows (nor do they distinguish between persons and events); data on refusals
of entry do not distinguish between the reasons for refusals of entry; and
data on removals do not specify which type and category of removals they
refer to.
While this appears to be a rather sobering assessment of the quality of the
main database on illegal migration at the European level, the preceding
analysis has also provided detailed and realistic recommendations for
improvements of this data collection. Using detailed statistics collected by
national administrations, it has been demonstrated that in many cases the
necessary data on refusals, apprehensions and returns do in fact exist and
therefore could easily be integrated into an improved CIREFI data-collection
system without the need for the production of completely new datasets at
the national levels. However, to make the compilation, aggregation and
interpretation of any improved European-wide dataset valid and
meaningful, more effort needs to be devoted to establishing common
definitions and harmonised standards of data collection. The proposed EU
Regulation, together with its implementing measures (yet to be formulated),
presents a good opportunity to drive this process forward.
285
Section 4
Special Scientific Investigations
Chapter 13
A Cohort Approach to Measuring
the Asylum Procedure
Rob van der Erf, Liesbeth Heering and Ernst Spaan
Introduction
As explained in Chapters 5 and 10, the current availability, reliability and
international comparability of asylum data leave much to be desired.
Differences in legislation, concepts, definitions and calculation methods
mean that it is difficult to quantify and compare the results of the asylum
procedures in different countries. So, alongside the harmonisation of asylum
procedures within the European Union, there is also a need to harmonise the
compilation of asylum statistics.
The interpretation of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 New
York Protocol is in the hands of national authorities, who apply different
criteria to the processes by which asylum is to be requested, the existence or
non-existence of some kind of preliminary procedure, the opportunities to
appeal, the length of the asylum procedure, and the possible forms of
permission to stay apart from Convention status. Furthermore, generally
used concepts such as ‘manifestly unfounded claims’, ‘safe third countries’
and ‘safe countries of origin’ can be and are interpreted differently.
Differences such as those indicated above are reflected in the national
statistics and there is a need to be aware of them when making international
comparisons.
A distinction must be drawn between asylum statistics on the one hand
and asylum data on the other. In practice, a lot of data are collected but not
published or otherwise made available to potential users. The reasons for
this omission are twofold either political motives may prevent certain data
from being published or only the statistics requested by external bodies are
compiled. These reasons, combined with the fact that the compilation of
asylum statistics is often left to the ministry or special agency responsible,
and is carried out for administrative rather than for statistical purposes, may
T H E S I M
explain the generally limited possibilities of describing the whole asylum
process in statistical terms.
An important step towards the harmonisation of asylum statistics is the
proposed EU Regulation (European Commission, 2005)1. The EU Regulation
focuses mainly on the collection and analysis of period-based data, i.e. data
that refer to calendar months and years. The initial impetus for a cohortbased approach was provided by Article 8c of the EU Regulation, which
requests statistics on international protection to be linked to the year of
submission of the application for asylum, as an additional disaggregation.
This chapter aims to move the discussion forward by demonstrating the
potential of cohort-based asylum data, and to advocate their collection. First,
the merits of the cohort approach, vis-à-vis the period approach, are
demonstrated. Then, on the micro level, a specimen database, including a
description of the records, is presented. The core of this chapter is macrolevel data, and includes five country studies. The asylum process, the
longitudinal data used, and the results in terms of recognition rates are
described for Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. In this way
the current availability, usefulness and comparability of longitudinal asylum
information is analysed. It is hoped that these studies will promote the
potential merits of collecting and publishing cohort-based asylum data, in
addition to period-based data. Throughout this chapter, the concept of the
asylum process is understood to be broader than the (judicial) concept of the
procedure for applying for asylum. The asylum process is regarded here as
beginning with the (first) application, involving several procedures, and
ending with either a permanent residence permit or a return home. The
chapter ends with some general conclusions.
1. The merits of a longitudinal approach
Period-based statistics describe events that happen within a specified
period of time, e.g. a month, a quarter, or a year. A disadvantage of this
approach is the limited possibility of linking sequential events (for example
asylum decisions with asylum applications) if these events occur in different
periods. The calculation of the recognition rate is a good example. This rate
tells us the percentage of asylum applicants (the ‘population at risk’) that is
eventually granted permission to remain in the host country. Mainly
1 For concepts and definitions in the field of asylum and migration, see also European
Commission (2003) and United Nations (1998). For a manual on asylum statistics, see Eurostat
(1998b).
290
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
because of the appeal possibilities and the time needed to come to appeal
decisions, most asylum procedures are not completed in the same period
(generally a calendar year) as they were started. For example, decisions
taken in 2003 may relate to asylum seekers who entered into the country in
2003, 2002, 2001, 2000 or even earlier. As a consequence, the recognition rate
for asylum applicants who arrived in, for example, 2000 can only be
properly calculated when this group or cohort is followed through the years.
This is called a cohort-based approach. In practice, most countries calculate
the recognition rate by simply dividing the number of positive asylum
decisions in a given calendar year by the total number of (asylum-related)
decisions made that year. This method of calculation can easily lead to
erroneous conclusions. The following simple, but not unrealistic, example
illustrates this.
Table 1. Example of decisions by calendar year and cohort
Period
recognition
rate
Cohort
< 2000
Applicants
2000
2001
3000
1500
%
25
Decisions calendar year 2000
positive decisions
200
200
negative decisions
800
400
positive decisions
100
400
100
negative decisions
400
600
400
positive decisions
600
200
negative decisions
800
600
30
Decisions calendar year 2001
Decisions calendar year 2002
Decisions calendar year 2003
0
positive decisions
200
negative decisions
40
Cohort recognition rate
20
According to Table 1, the recognition rate for the calendar year 2000 (in
the row) was 25% (400/1600) and for 2001 it was 30% (600/2000). The
increase may suggest that the decision makers became more generous.
However, looking at the cohort-based recognition rate (in the column) the
opposite appears to be true: for the 2000 cohort the recognition rate was 40%
291
T H E S I M
(1200/3000) but for 2001 it was only 20% (300/1500). Another disadvantage
of period-based recognition rates is double counting due to appeal decisions.
This example clearly shows the limitations of the period-based approach and
the merits of cohort-based recognition rates.
In addition to the recognition rate, the calculation of waiting times (e.g.
between the time of application and the first instance decision, between the
first instance and the second instance decision, etc.) is also only possible by
means of a cohort-based approach. This is clarified by an example below.
2. A specimen database
An electronic database is necessary for the collection and analysis of
longitudinal asylum data. Each asylum applicant has one record in this
database. This record consists of various predefined fields, depending on the
characteristics of the asylum process in a specific country. In Figure 1, a
simple example of an ‘ideal type’ of asylum process is presented.
Figure 1. Example of an asylum process
Asylum
applications
Preliminary
procedure
Normal
procedure
Pending in
preliminary
procedure
Refused in
preliminary
procedure
Positive
1st instance
decision
Negative
1st instance
decision
Pending
1st instance
decision
Departed
1st appeal
Departed
Unknown
Repeat
Positive
2nd instance
decision
Negative
2nd instance
decision
Pending
1st appeal
Departed
Unknown
Unknown
Repeat
In this example it is assumed that:
ƒ there is a preliminary procedure to assess the admissibility of a
claim;
292
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
ƒ there is no opportunity to appeal against a refusal in the preliminary
procedure;
ƒ there is only one opportunity to appeal against a negative decision;
ƒ the rejected applicant is entitled to submit only one repeat
application on the basis of substantially changed circumstances.
Following the procedure in Figure 1, and enriched with some additional
data (identification number, sex, date of birth, citizenship and
individual/family application), the record description shown in Table 2
could result. The database thus created enables the asylum process to be
analysed in numerous ways. Firstly, it provides information on the current
status of asylum applications.
ƒ Pending applications:
- in the preliminary procedure;
- in the normal procedure for first applications awaiting the first
instance decision;
- in the normal procedure for first applications awaiting the second
instance decision;
- in the normal procedure for repeat applications awaiting the first
instance decision;
- in the normal procedure for repeat applications awaiting the
second instance decision.
ƒ Granted applications:
- first instance for first applications;
- second instance for first applications;
- first instance for repeat applications;
- second instance for repeat applications.
ƒ Rejected but not yet effectively departed applicants.
ƒ Rejected and effectively departed applicants.
Secondly, various duration factors can be calculated, such as:
ƒ the length of stay in the country before the first application;
ƒ the duration of the preliminary procedure;
ƒ the time interval between the start of the normal procedure and the
first instance decision;
ƒ the time interval between the date of appeal and the second instance
decision;
ƒ the total length of the completed asylum processes.
Finally, recognition rates can be adequately determined by calculating
the proportion of positive decisions. However, an important disadvantage of
deriving the rates in this way is that, in principle, the calculation should be
delayed till everyone belonging to a certain cohort has received a final
decision. Forecasting the outcome of pending cases can solve this problem.
293
T H E S I M
In the country studies presented below these forecasts have been made on
the basis of the results of previous completed cases.
Table 2. Example of a record description
Field
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Description
Code
Identification number
yymmddsn 1
Sex
M(ale) or F(emale)
Date of birth
ddmmyy
Individual or family application
I(ndividual) or F(amily)
Citizenship
Eurostat codes
Date of entry into the country
ddmmyy
Date of first application
ddmmyy
Date of result of preliminary procedure
ddmmyy
Result of preliminary procedure
A(ccepted) or R(efused)
Date of first instance decision – first application
ddmmyy
P(ositive) or N(egative)
Result of first instance decision − first application
ddmmyy
Date of first appeal − first application
Date of second instance decision after first appeal – first
ddmmyy
13
application
Result of second instance decision after first appeal – first
P(ositive) or N(egative)
14
application
2
15
Date of repeat application
ddmmyy
16
Date of first instance decision – repeat application
ddmmyy
17
Result of first instance decision – repeat application
P(ositive) or N(egative)
18
ddmmyy
Date of first appeal − repeat application
Date of second instance decision after first appeal − repeat
ddmmyy
19
application
Result of second instance decision after first appeal −
P(ositive) or N(egative)
20
repeat application
21
Date of effected departure
ddmmyy
1 Identification numbers can be coded in various ways. In this example use is made of date
of first application plus a serial number; e.g. 01102503.
2 Repeat applications retain their original identification numbers.
The example record described in Table 2 includes 21 fixed fields: most of
them (12) refer to (event) dates, 5 involve the possible result of a decision,
and the remaining 4 supply further additional information.
Using some invented cases the way the record would work at the micro
level can be illustrated. These cases are shown in Table 3. Summary
information derived from the records is presented in Table 4 (current status)
and Table 5 (duration indicators).
Case 1 is a simple example of an asylum process. A 29-year-old man from
Zimbabwe entered the country without family members on 15th July 2004
and lodged a request for asylum the same day. Two days later he was
accepted in the preliminary procedure and within three months a positive
294
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
decision was taken in the normal procedure. This means that the whole
asylum process took 62 days.
Table 3. Examples of completed records
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Field
04071501 03031503 03030511 02061415 02061414 04061204 03070110 04061904 03111203 03111204
1
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
2
070874
151256
121180
170473
100471
120873
030369
161091
161081
020599
3
I
I
I
F
F
I
I
I
F
F
4
ZW
AF
BD
TR
TR
SO
RO
AO
IQ
IQ
5
150704
100303 05-0303
020102
020102
150504
270603
190604
101103
101103
6
150704
150303
050303
140602
140602
120604
010703
190604
121103
121103
7
170704
200303
090303
160602
160602
160604
090703
230604
191103
191103
8
A
A
A
A
A
R
A
A
A
A
9
150904
050803
100104
021003
021003
221203
160604
160604
10
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
11
100803
200104
151003
151003
020104
190604
190604
12
250204
140904
120204
120204
120404
13
P
N
N
N
N
14
220704
15
190804
16
N
17
240804
18
19
20
021004
150304
180604
21
Reference date (for completion of table): 31st December 2004.
Case 2 involves a man from Afghanistan, born on 15th December 1956,
who entered the country on his own on 10th March 2003. Five days later his
asylum application was lodged and after another five days he was admitted
to the normal asylum procedure. Then, on 5th August 2003, he was informed
that his request had been rejected. In consultation with his lawyer, the
Afghan applicant appealed against the negative first instance decision on
10th August 2003. This appeal was granted on 25th February 2004, almost one
year after the date of first application.
In the third case, a 22-year-old man from Bangladesh submitted an
asylum request on the day he entered the country, 5th March 2003. This
individual request passed the admissibility procedure on 9th March 2003.
The first instance decision, ten months later, was negative. His appeal
(lodged on 20th January 2004) was also rejected (on 14th September 2004).
Finally, he effectively left the country on 2nd October 2004. The whole
asylum process took 1.6 years.
295
T H E S I M
Cases 4 and 5 are treated together because they concern a married couple
from Turkey. They entered the country on 2nd January 2002 and filed an
asylum application on 14th June 2002. Two days later, they were accepted for
the normal procedure. It took more than a year before they were informed
about the negative first instance decision. After a rejection in the appeal
procedure, the husband was forcibly returned to a third country on 15th
March 2004. The place of residence of the wife is currently not known. For
her, the asylum process has not yet finished after 2.5 years.
Table 4. Current status indicators
Case
1
2
3
4
Asylum process not yet finished
pending first application
waiting for preliminary decision
waiting for first instance decision
waiting for second instance decision
pending repeat application
waiting for first instance decision
waiting for second instance decision
departure not yet documented (disappeared)
x
Asylum process finished
Granted residence permit
x
x
effectively departed
x
Reference date (for completion of table): 31st December 2004.
5
6
7
8
9
10
x
x
x
x
x
x
In Case 6, a 30-year-old woman from Somalia entered the country on 15th
May 2004. After an illegal stay of almost a month, she requested asylum on
12th June. She was refused in the admissibility procedure and sent back two
days later. Her asylum process lasted less than a week.
Case 7 describes the asylum process of a Romanian man, born in 1969,
who entered the country on 27th June 2003. He does not give up easily
witness the fact that after two negative decisions (first instance and appeal)
he succeeded in filing a repeat application. So far this repeat application has
resulted in a negative first instance decision. Currently, i.e. on 31st December
2004, the Romanian awaits the result of the appeal that he has lodged.
Case 8 deals with an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker. A 12-year-old
girl from Angola requested asylum on 19th June 2004, immediately upon
arrival. After acceptance in the preliminary procedure, she is still waiting for
the first instance decision.
The last two cases relate to a father (born in 1981) and his daughter (born
in 1999) from Iraq. They filed their applications on 12th November 2003 and
more than six months later they are informed that they have been rejected in
296
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
the first instance. As at 31st December 2004 they are awaiting the result of the
appeal they lodged.
Reviewing these ten cases, it can be seen that five of them were closed on
the reference date, two in a positive way (with the grant of a residence
permit) and three in a negative way (effectively departed). The duration of
these completed asylum processes varied a lot, from 6 to 640 days. Four of
the five remaining cases are still pending, and for one the departure still has
to be documented.
Table 5. Duration indicators (in days)
Case
1
2
3
4
5
First application
Stay in the country before
0
5
0 163 163
application
Preliminary procedure
2
5
4
2
2
First instance decision
60 138 307 473 473
Between first decision and first
nap
5 10
13 13
appeal
Second instance decision
nap 199 238 120 12
Repeat application
Between first and repeat application nap nap nap
nap
First instance decision
nap nap nap
nap
Between first decision and first
nap nap nap
nap
appeal
Second instance decision
nap nap nap
nap
Whole process
Up to latest decision
62 347 559 608 608
Total length of asylum process
62 347 577
640
Reference date (for completion of table): 31st December 2004.
nap=not applicable.
6
7
8
9
10
28
4
0
2
2
4
nap
8
166
4
7
210
7
210
nap
11
3
3
nap
101
nap
nap
387
28
nap
5
4 217
217
nap
4
6
415
3. Country studies
It is still far from common practice for countries to publish and analyse
cohort-based data on asylum seekers. Most countries only use the periodbased approach, although there is strong evidence that data-collection
procedures in several countries are sufficient to produce longitudinal
information on cohorts. Countries still remain to be convinced of the merits
of this approach. One of the aims of the country studies below is to show, in
a variety of settings, the added value of longitudinal information, especially
with regard to the adequate calculation of the recognition rate.
Against the background of current asylum procedures and by means of
available cohort-based data, the longitudinal approach is applied here to
Belgium, Denmark, France and the Netherlands. NSI and/or specialised
297
T H E S I M
agencies responsible for the production of asylum data in these countries
were asked to deliver primary data on all the steps in the asylum process. It
must be emphasised however, that the concept of availability relates here to
public sources (publications, data on websites, etc.) and not to data
collection as such. In other words, if it is said that, for example, Denmark has
not published cohort data by country of citizenship, it does not necessarily
mean that Denmark is not able to provide such data.
3.1 Asylum procedures and possible outcomes
Table 6 summarises the main characteristics of the asylum procedures in
the countries being studied. All these countries start with some kind of
preliminary procedure to assess which requests are eligible for the normal
procedure. This preliminary procedure may be an admissibility procedure
and/or an accelerated procedure. Most often, the criteria used to refuse or
reject asylum claims at this early stage are related to:
ƒ the concept of ‘manifestly unfounded’ requests, i.e. when it is
obvious that the applicant has no valid motive for seeking asylum.
This includes, for example, fraudulent applications and applications
that concern people who might pose a serious threat to public order;
ƒ the Dublin Convention2, determining the EU MS responsible for
examining the asylum application;
ƒ the concept of ‘safe third country’, when the applicant has come via a
non-EU country that is considered to be safe, where he or she could
have asked for asylum;
ƒ the concept of safe ‘country of origin’, when the applicant is a citizen
and/or inhabitant of a country that is considered to be safe.
Belgium and the Netherlands include all the criteria mentioned above in
their preliminary procedures. In Denmark the preliminary procedure
consists of two parts: i) the admissibility procedure, before processing,
which tests for ‘Dublin’, safe third country and safe country of origin; and ii)
during processing the ‘manifestly unfounded’ procedure is applied to cases
that obviously have no prospect of success. In France there is no test for safe
third country or safe country of origin.
2
Known as ‘Dublin II’ since 2003.
298
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
Table 6. Asylum procedures and possible outcomes
Positive outcome
Negative outcome
Appeal level4
ConvenSubsiWith
Without Prelimi- Normal
tion
diary pro- Other
order
order nary pro- Procestatus
tection2
to leave to leave3 cedure
dure
BE
x5
x
x
x
2
1
DK
x6
x
x
x
x
0
17
FR
x8
x9
x
x
2
2
NL
x5
x10
x
2
2
1 Preceding the normal procedure.
2 In a broad sense, including humanitarian grounds, protection status, etc.
3 Allowed to stay for a limited period of time.
4 Number of appeal bodies; a suspension generally applies to the first body only.
5 Manifestly unfounded, safe country of origin, safe third country, and Dublin criteria.
6 Admissibility on Dublin, safe third country and safe country of origin criteria; at the
processing stage a ‘manifestly unfounded’ procedure exists.
7 If asylum is refused in the normal procedure, the case is automatically transferred to the
Refugee Appeals Board.
8 Admissibility on manifestly unfounded and Dublin criteria.
9 In addition to Convention status there is a ‘constitutional asylum’ status that is, however,
rarely granted.
10 Only one status exists: a temporary residence permit is granted for five years, including
the right to work.
Preliminary
procedure1
All countries except the Netherlands can grant Geneva Convention
status. The Netherlands recently decided to limit the number of statuses to
one, i.e. a temporary residence permit, to be renewed each year for five
years, with the possibility of obtaining a residence permit for an indefinite
period after the initial five years are up.
For applicants who are considered not to meet the Convention criteria,
there are alternative ways of staying in a country, although these often
provide fewer rights and apply for a limited period of time only. The
umbrella term ‘subsidiary protection’ is given to these alternative ways of
remaining, when this is seen as a positive result of the asylum procedure.
When it is seen as a negative result of the asylum procedure the (unofficial)
qualification ‘without order to leave’ is used in Table 6. In practice, the
distinction between subsidiary protection and without order to leave status
is not always clear. Both concepts may include various protective grounds
(when it would be irresponsible to send the applicant back to his or her
home country (e.g. according to the non-refoulement principle that is laid
down in the Geneva Convention) and humanitarian grounds (e.g. family
ties, grave illness, etc.).
Probably due to this vague distinction, Belgium, France and the
Netherlands only offer the subsidiary protection status and Belgium only the
without order to leave status. Both statuses are offered in Denmark. In the
299
T H E S I M
four countries that only offer one of these statuses, the difference between
subsidiary protection and without order to leave is assumed to be small.
However, in Denmark subsidiary protection status probably implies a better
position, in terms of rights and prolongation of the residence permit, than
without order to leave status. The impact of the distinction on the
international comparison of recognition rates is considerable, since
subsidiary protection is counted as a positive result of the asylum procedure
and without order to leave as a negative one. This means that the
recognition rates of countries with only the subsidiary protection status will
be systematically higher than those of countries with only the without order
to leave status. As a consequence, Belgium’s recognition rate should not be
unthinkingly compared. Some kind of correction is needed, as will be shown
below.
Finally, some comments on the appeal possibilities are relevant. There
appears to be considerable variation in this respect between the countries,
regarding either the kind of asylum procedure (preliminary or normal)
against whose decision an appeal may be lodged, the number of different
authorities involved, the kind of appeal body and/or the right to await the
appeal decision in the host country. The appeal level and the number of
subsequent appeal bodies, varies from 0 (for applicants refused in the
preliminary procedure in Denmark) to 2 (for both kinds of procedure in
France and the Netherlands).
The first appeal authority may be:
ƒ the first instance decision maker;
ƒ a dedicated appeal body;
ƒ a general appeal body.
Generally, applicants in both the preliminary procedure and the normal
procedure are entitled to await the decision of the first appeal in the country.
Appeal decisions relating to the preliminary procedure are usually taken
much faster than those relating to the normal procedure.
Subsequent appeal authorities involve (with some exceptions) some kind
of court (e.g the regional court, district court, High Court, or Council of
State). Appeals to the High Court and Council of State are only reviewed in
order to determine the legality of the procedure that was followed (judicial
review). Normally, applicants awaiting the outcome of subsequent appeals
are not entitled to stay in the host country.
The appeal procedure in Denmark is significantly different from that in
other countries, in the sense that all negative first instance decisions in the
normal procedure are automatically transferred to the Refugee Appeals
Board. The second instance decisions of this board are final.
300
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
3.2 Cohort-based asylum data: practical applications at the
national level
Table 7 gives an overview of the longitudinal data that was used in the
country studies. Looking at the number of cohorts and the breakdown by
citizenship, it is clear that a lot more data was available for Belgium than for
the other countries. However, information on appeals and returns was
missing from the Belgian dataset. Denmark was the only country whose data
did not allow for a breakdown by country of citizenship. An important
difference between France on the one hand, and the other countries on the
other hand, was that the French data related to processed applications, while
the other countries considered the applications lodged. This means that
applicants who were refused in the admissibility procedure were not
included in the French data, but did form part of the dataset for the other
countries. In the Belgian and Danish figures these admissibility refusals
were recorded separately, but in the Dutch figures they were included with
the rejections in the normal procedure. Apart from France, all the countries
provided information on pending cases (the small numbers of pending cases
available for France were omitted). Some data on appeals was available for
France and the Netherlands, and some data on the return of rejected
applicants for Denmark and the Netherlands.
Table 7. The longitudinal asylum data used in the country studies
Cohorts
BE
1988−1998
Procedure
Citizenship PrelimiNormal Total
nary
x1
DK 2000−20032
FR
1997−2000
x
NL
2000−2002
x6
3
Pending
cases
Appeals
x
x
x
x
x
x
4
x
5
x
x
x
x
Returns
x
x
Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, India, Kosovo, Pakistan, Romania, Rwanda,
Turkey, other.
2 Only the first six months of 2003.
3 Continents: Europe, Asia, Africa, other.
4 Excluding applicants who are refused entry in the admissibility procedure.
5 All pending case are excluded.
6 Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq, Sierra Leone, other.
1
Compared to the specimen database (Table 2) the national datasets in the
countries being studied are quite basic. For example, they do not allow for
the calculation of any duration indicators. Furthermore, it is not possible to
301
T H E S I M
specify the results by sex and age, and the distinction between individual
and family applications is missing.
3.3 Some results on recognition rates
Given the variety of asylum procedures and available datasets, it is
neither feasible nor sensible to present comparative graphs and tables for the
five countries under consideration. Therefore, the main results, focusing on
the recognition rate, will be discussed on a country by country basis.
3.3.1 Belgium
Asylum procedure
An admissibility procedure is applied to all asylum applicants using all
the criteria (i.e. manifestly unfounded, safe third country, safe country of
origin, and Dublin II). If asylum is requested at the border the applicant is
detained in a closed centre until the application is declared admissible. If
there is a positive decision in the normal procedure, either Convention or
humanitarian, the applicant receives a certificate of enrolment in the alien’s
register, which allows permanent residence.
An appeal against a decision of inadmissibility may be lodged with the
Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. An appeal
against a decision of non-recognition as a refugee can be lodged with the
Permanent Appeal Commission for Refugees. Further appeals to the Council
of State are possible.
Longitudinal data available
Figure 2 shows the macro-levels at which longitudinal asylum
information has been collected for Belgium by Michel Poulain (Poulain,
1996). A grey field indicates that a final decision has been made or that the
applicant has pending status. The data collection is primarily focused on
final decisions. Applicants still awaiting their final decisions have all been
labelled as pending cases. The data relate to the asylum 1988-1998 cohorts
with reference date 1st January 2000. They are available for all relevant
countries of citizenship.
302
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
Figure 2. Schematic overview of the longitudinal asylum data available in Belgium
Asylum
applications
Preliminary
procedure
Applications
processed
Negative
decision
Administr.
closed
Pending
Positive
decision
Negative
decision
Administr.
closed
Pending
.
Source: Poulain (1996).
As a consequence of the simple data-collection approach, only basic
results can be obtained. Compared to the specimen database presented
above, the following important details are missing:
ƒ all duration indicators;
ƒ information on appeal procedures;
ƒ the distinction between obtaining Convention and humanitarian
status;
ƒ information on sex and age;
ƒ information on whether the application was for an individual or a
family.
Despite the simple nature of the dataset, the length of the time series and
the distinction by citizenship, means that some important conclusions can be
drawn.
Some results
Figure 3 shows the trends in the number of asylum seekers in Belgium
for the 1988-1998 cohorts, as well as their recognition rates. Because, in the
ideal case, recognition rates cannot be determined definitively until the last
pending application has been finally decided, the recognition rates
presented here include estimates for the applications which are still pending.
These are based on the results of the completed applications. Obviously, in
303
T H E S I M
general, the more recent a cohort the larger the forecast element will be.
Table 8 explains the system of calculation3.
Figure 3. Asylum applications and recognition rates in Belgium, 1988 1998 cohorts
absolute x 1000
recognition rate %
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
absolute (scale left)
1994
1995
1996
1997
0
1998
recognition rate (scale right)
Source: Poulain (1996).
Reference date is 1st January 2000. Recognition rates have been partly estimated.
Figure 3 shows that there was a striking negative relation between the
number of asylum seekers and the recognition rate in Belgium, especially
during the years 1988-1994. One out of five of the relatively small asylum
1988 cohort was allowed to stay, compared to fewer than one out of twenty
of the sizeable asylum 1993 cohort. The next drop in the number of asylum
seekers, in 1994, was again accompanied by a higher recognition rate.
Hereafter, the relation-ship between the size of the cohort and the
recognition rate was somewhat masked at this time by an apparently
structurally decreasing recognition rate. For the last cohort in the study,
1998, it is expected on the basis of these figures that the recognition rate will
be about 5%.
3 A more sophisticated method distinguishing applications which were still pending in the
preliminary procedure and those pending in the normal procedure, produced unreliable results
due to the small number of cases involved.
304
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
The composition of an asylum cohort by country of citizenship appears to
be far from stable. For example, in 1988, Ghanaian asylum seekers accounted
for more than 25% of the total number whereas this percentage dropped to
0.2% for the 1998 cohort. Conversely, the share of asylum seekers from
Kosovo grew from 0.7% to more than 18%. For the whole period 1988 1998
the largest number of asylum seekers came from the Democratic Republic of
Congo (19,200, with a peak in 1993) and Romania (18,000, also with a peak in
1993).
Table 8. Example of method of forecasting pending cases for Belgium
500
Initial size of cohort t from country p (a)
Situation at the end of year t + n
positive decisions (b)
100
negative decisions (c)
300
total decisions (d) = (b) + (c)
100 + 300
400
still pending (e) = (a) – (d)
500 − 400
100
positive decisions (f) = (e) * ((b)/(d))
100*(100/400)
25
negative decisions (g) = (e) * ((c)/(d))
100*(300/400)
75
Forecast pending cases
Recognition rate
observed (h) = (b)/(a)
100/500
20%
forecast (i) = (f)/(a)
25/500
5%
20% + 5%
25%
total (j) = (h) + (i)
The recognition rates in Belgium show considerable differences, both
between countries of citizenship, and within countries of citizenship over
time. Asylum seekers from Ghana, India and Pakistan had hardly any
chance of being allowed to remain in Belgium throughout the whole period
under consideration. On the other hand, asylum seekers from Rwanda were
more likely to be allowed to settle in Belgium, mainly due to the genocide in
Rwanda in 1994. People from the Democratic Republic of Congo had
chances varying between 7% for the 1993 cohort to an expected 22% for 1996.
For Turkish applicants, the recognition rate fell sharply: from more than 50%
(1988 cohort) to an expected figure of less than 2% (1997 cohort). The same
holds for Romania: from 24% (1989 cohort) to less than 1% (1997 and 1998
cohorts).
305
T H E S I M
The development of the total recognition rate in Belgium can be
considered against the background of the changes in composition of the
cohorts. For example, the sudden rise in the total recognition rate for the
1994 cohort (to 11.9%, compared to 4.7% for 1993) is largely due to the
changing composition of the cohorts caused by the increased proportion of
applicants from Rwanda (with a high recognition rate) and the decreased
proportion of people from Ghana, India, Pakistan and Romania (with low
recognition rates). Without any changes in the composition, but with the
same country recognition rates, the total recognition rate for 1994 would
only have been 6.9%.
3.3.2 Denmark
Asylum procedure
The Danish asylum procedure is based on the principle of a single
asylum procedure for all cases and types of decisions. Before an application
is processed in Denmark, there is an assessment as to whether Denmark or
another EU country is responsible for examining the application, or whether
the applicant should be referred to a ‘safe third country’. When it is decided
to process the application in Denmark, there are two different procedures,
the ‘manifestly unfounded procedure’ and the ‘normal procedure’. The
manifestly unfounded procedure is applied in cases that are obviously
without prospect. In the normal procedure, a residence permit may be
obtained either as: a Convention refugee; offering protection status for
asylum seekers who do not meet the criteria of Convention refugee but who
risk the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment if they return to their country of origin; on other
grounds (i.e. humanitarian and exceptional reasons), for example for asylum
seekers who cannot be returned to their home country (this is, however,
classified as a negative asylum decision).
After a negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service in the
manifestly unfounded procedure, there is no possibility of appeal and,
generally, the applicant has to leave the country immediately. If asylum is
refused in the normal procedure, the case is automatically transferred to the
Refugee Appeals Board, a quasi-judicial body chaired by a judge. The
decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board, made by a majority of votes, are
final. No further appeal is possible.
306
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
Longitudinal data available
Figure 4 shows the longitudinal asylum information which was
published by the Danish Immigration Service in its Statistical Overview
20034. A grey field indicates that a final decision has been made or that the
applicant has pending status. The data relate to the 2000, 2001, 2002 and first
half of 2003 asylum cohorts. The reference date is 1st January 2004. The data
offers various opportunities for further analyses.
Figure 4. Schematic overview of the longitudinal asylum data available in Denmark
Asylum
applications
Preliminary
procedure
Positive
decision
1st instance
Convention
Protection
Negative
decision
Pending
Applications
processed
Administr.
closed
Dublin/safe
third country
Pending
Negative
decision
1st instance
2nd instance
2nd instance
1st instance
Convention
2nd instance
Adm. closed
Protection
Source: Udlændingestyrelsen (2004).
Legislation: Danish Aliens Act (last amended in 2003).
When the ideal data on asylum (as presented above) is compared to the
cohort data published by the Danish Immigration Service, the following
observations can be made:
ƒ no duration indicators are included;
ƒ information on sex, age and citizenship of the applicants is not
included;
ƒ no distinction is made between individual and family applications;
ƒ only final decisions are presented, steps in between (e.g. appeal
decisions) are omitted.
4
Use has been made of the English version of the Statistical Overview.
307
T H E S I M
Some results
Figure 5 shows that the recognition rate in Denmark (including the
estimated part for the pending cases) fell sharply in a short period of time.
Whereas 37% of the applications filed in 2000 ended in a positive decision,
only about 10% of the applications lodged in the first half of 2003 are
expected to end this way. It must be noted however (that in contrast to, for
example, the Netherlands) Denmark does not include residence permits
granted on other grounds in the category of positive decisions.
Figure 5. Asylum applications and recognition rates in Denmark, 2000-2003 cohorts
absolute x 1000
recognition rate %
20
40
15
30
10
20
5
10
0
2000
0
2001
2002
absolute (scale left)
2003
recognition rate (scale right)
Source: Udlændingestyrelsen, 2004.
Reference date: 1st January 2004. Recognition rates have been partly estimated. For 2003 this
rate concerns January-June.
Final rejections can be split between ‘effectively returned’, ‘return not
confirmed’, and ‘residence permit issued on other grounds’. The respective
figures for these categories are: 2000 cohort-20%, 6% and 5%; 2001-18%, 11%
and 3%; 2002-14%, 11% and 1%. Figures for the 2003 cohort are not yet
available. Hence, if we assume for the sake of comparability that the recognition rate should cover all awards of residence permits, the Danish
recognition rates should be corrected upwards from 37% to 42% for the 2000
cohort, from 29% to 32% for 2001, and from 25% to 26% for 2002. Given the
downward trend in the number of residence permits granted on other
grounds, it is plausible to assume that no upward correction of the
308
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
recognition rate will be needed for the 2003 cohort. As well as this upgrade
of the Danish recognition rate, there is also the possibility that the figures
will eventually have to be downgraded because, as in the Netherlands, no
permanent residents’ permits are granted initially in Denmark. If initial
residence permits are later with-drawn this will decrease the (final)
recognition rate. Further information on this possibility is not currently
available.
To illustrate the difference between the cohort-based and the calendar
year or period-based recognition rate, it can be noted that, according to the
Danish Immigration Service, the period-rate for the calendar year 2003 was
22% for first instance decisions and 18% for second instance decisions
(compared to about 10% for the cohort-based decisions shown in Figure 5).
At first sight this result is unexpected because the elimination of double
counting of refusals at various stages of the process in the cohort approach
should lead to a higher recognition rate. However, the exclusion of rejected
cases in the preliminary procedure from the period rates produces the
reverse result. This simple illustration shows that various pitfalls are
involved in comparing recognition rates.
3.3.3 France
Asylum procedure
Requests for asylum in France can be submitted either at the border entry
points or in the country. There is an admissibility procedure at the border
which focuses on the manifestly unfounded criterion. If the application at
the border is accepted, the asylum applicant receives an eight-day ‘safeconduct’ pass that allows him or her to apply for asylum inside the country
(there is no way to file an asylum application at the border). Before an
application is processed, admissibility is tested according to all the criteria.
In the normal procedure, applications for asylum can be accepted on any
one of the following legal grounds: i) the application is justified under the
terms of the Geneva Convention (conventional asylum); ii) the application
refers to persecution of people acting to promote the values of freedom and
democracy in their country of origin (constitutional asylum); iii) asylum
applications not covered by conventional or constitutional asylum can
benefit from a declaration of subsidiary protection. This is granted if return
to the country of origin involves a risk of death, torture, degrading or
inhuman treatment; or if the country is in conflict or at war. The first two
categories result in a long-term (automatically renewable) residence permit
valid for ten years, the third in a temporary residence permit valid for one
309
T H E S I M
year. In the case of a negative decision, the applicant is requested to leave
the country. If this request is not acted upon, a deportation order is issued
against the non-national.
When the decision of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and
Stateless Persons (OFPRA) is negative, the claimant has one month to appeal
against it to the Refugee Appeals Commission. The Commission’s decision
can take several months, during which time OFPRA’s decision is suspended
(i.e. the non-national can remain in the country). If OFPRA’s decision is
upheld, the claimant can lodge a last appeal with the Council of State, but
must leave the country while this appeal is considered.
Longitudinal data available
Figure 6 shows the macro-level longitudinal information on the asylum
process which is available for each of the different stages in the French
asylum process. A grey field indicates the final status of the applicant.
Pending applications, which are small in number, have been excluded.
Under-age accompanying children have also been excluded5. The data relate
to the asylum cohorts 1997-2000. The reference dates are 23rd March 2002 for
the 1997 and 1998 cohorts, 24th March 2003 for 1999, and 20th March 2004 for
2000. As well as the overall total, separate information is provided for the
main continents of origin (Europe, Asia, Africa). The French cohort data
offers several ways of analysing the asylum process.
When comparing the ‘ideal’ data on asylum presented earlier with
OFPRA’s output OFPRA, the following observations can be made:
ƒ no information is available on inadmissible asylum requests;
ƒ no duration indicators have been published;
ƒ information on the sex and age of applicants is missing;
ƒ no distinction is made between individual and family applications;
ƒ no information is available on under-age accompanying children;
ƒ information on more recent cohorts (2001, 2002 and 2003) is not yet
available.
5 It is estimated by OFPRA that the total number of applicants, including accompanying minor
children, is about 15% higher than the figures given here (Figure 7).
310
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
Figure 6. Schematic overview of the longitudinal asylum data available in France
Asylum
applications
Negative
1st instance
decision
Positive
1st instance
decision
Appeal
Positive
2nd instance
decision
No appeal
Negative
2nd instance
decision
Otherwise
closed
Re-examination
Positive
2nd instance
decision
Negative
2nd instance
decision
Source: Data published by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless
Persons (OFPRA).
Some results
In France, the overall cohort recognition rate has not decreased
dramatically in recent years (Figure 7). The highest rate was for the 1998
cohort (25%) and the lowest for 2000 (20%). As already indicated (Table 7)
the available French data is not classified by citizenship but by continent.
This distinction shows pronounced differences. The European recognition
rate increased from 13% for the 1997 cohort to 25% for the 1999 cohort.
Conversely, the Asian rate decreased from 35% for 1997 to 20% for 2000, and
the African rate from 25% for 1997 to 18% for 2000. Looking at the negative
decisions, the majority of asylum seekers who were rejected at first instance
appear to lodge an appeal or request a re-examination of their case. Overall,
only one in five of all negative decisions were finalised at first instance. This
figure is much lower for Asian asylum seekers (around one in ten) but much
higher for European claimants (between one in three and one in four).
The degree of success of appeals or re-examinations appears to be
limited, averaging around 10%. In the most recent cohorts (1999 and 2000)
European asylum seekers were the most successful (at 20% and 17%
respectively). Obviously, for Europeans, the pre-selection, leading to a lower
proportion of appeals/re-examinations, more often results in positive
second instance decisions.
Figure 7 shows not only the cohort-based recognition rate, but also the
period-based recognition rate and the total number of asylum requests for
the 1997-2000 cohorts. As expected, the cohort-based recognition rates are
higher than the period-based ones. However, the differences in this respect
311
T H E S I M
are quite modest, probably due, on the one hand, to the relatively quick
asylum procedures in France, and, on the other hand, to the small numbers
of appeals or re-examinations that lead to a positive decision. The first
reason explains the essentially parallel course of the two recognition rates
over time, the second the limited amount of double counting in the
calculation of the period rates (i.e. negative decisions that are transformed
into positive decisions).
As in Belgium, in France there appears to be a negative relationship
between the number of asylum requests and the recognition rate. There was
a 22% decrease of the cohort-based recognition rate in the period 1998-2000,
against a 73% increase in the absolute number of asylum seekers.
Figure 7. Asylum applications and recognition rates in France,1997-2000 cohorts
absolute x 1000
recognition rate %
40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
1997
1998
absolute
0
2000
1999
period recognition rate
cohort recognition rate
Source: Office Français de Protection des Réfugiés et Apatrides (OFPRA) (2002; 2003; 2004).
Reference date: 23rd March 2002 for 1997 and 1998 cohorts, 24th March 2003 for 1999, 20th
March 2004 for 2000. Accompanying minor children are excluded.
A final note relates to the (assumed) exclusion of asylum requests that are
considered inadmissible. This might have a significant (but unknown)
downwards effect on the recognition rate. However, no further information
on this subject is available.
312
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
3.3.4 The Netherlands
Asylum procedure
According to the Aliens Act 2000, an accelerated procedure is applied to
all asylum applicants using all the relevant criteria (i.e. manifestly
unfounded, safe third country, safe country of origin, and Dublin II). In the
normal procedure a temporary asylum residence permit is issued to an
applicant:
ƒ who is a refugee under the terms of the Convention;
ƒ who would run a real risk of being subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on return to his or
her country of origin;
ƒ who cannot return for pressing reasons of a humanitarian nature;
ƒ for whom return to the country of origin would, in the opinion of the
Minister, constitute an exceptional hardship in connection with the
overall situation there;
ƒ who falls within the framework of regulations regarding family
reunion.
The duration of the temporary residence permit is fixed at five years and
it has to be renewed annually. After five years an asylum permit for an
indefinite period may be obtained if the applicant (still) fulfils the
conditions.
If an application is rejected, the applicant can apply for judicial review by
the court (and deportation is suspended during this review). An appeal
against a judicial decision may be lodged with the Council of State (and,
again, deportation is suspended until the appeal is concluded). In all cases,
the final decision can only be taken by the first instance authority (IND).
The implementation of the new Aliens Act 2000 in the Netherlands on 1st
April 2001 led to a division of applications being dealt with under the old
and the new aliens acts. Because this division influences the type of data
supplied, this country study is limited to applications lodged under the new
act6. Because of the mixed character of the data, it makes no sense to
compare trends on the absolute number of asylum applicants (both ‘old’ and
‘new’ for 2000 and 2001) with the recognition rate (‘new’ only).
6 For analyses of asylum cohorts processed under the previous aliens act (Doornbos and
Groenendijk, 2001; van der Erf , 2002).
313
T H E S I M
Longitudinal data available
Figure 8 shows the macro-level longitudinal information on asylum
which is available for the Dutch asylum process. A grey field indicates the
current status of the applicant. The data relates to the 2000-2002 cohorts of
asylum seekers. The reference date is 31st March 2003. As well as the total,
separate information is provided for the most numerous countries of origin
(Afghanistan, Angola, Iraq and Sierra Leone). The Dutch cohort data offers
extensive possibilities for analysing the asylum process in the Netherlands.
Figure 8. Schematic overview of the longitudinal asylum data available in the Netherlands
Asylum
applications
Positive
1st instance
decision
Permanent
permit
Temporary
permit
Positive
2nd instance
decision
Permanent
permit
Pending
1st instance
decision
Pending
2nd instance
decision
Negative
2nd instance
decision
Negative
1st instance
decision
Returned
1st appeal
Unknown
Granted
1st appeal
Not granted
1st appeal
Pending
1st appeal
Returned
2nd appeal
Unknown
Granted
2nd appeal
Not granted
2nd appeal
Pending
2nd appeal
Temporary
permit
Returned
Returned
Unknown
Unknown
Source: Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND).
Legislation: Aliens Act 2000 (in force since 1st April 2001).
Comparing with the idealised dataset on asylum presented earlier, the
following remarks can be made about the output of the Dutch Ministry of
Justice:
ƒ the preliminary procedure is not distinguished from the normal
procedure;
ƒ no duration indicators are available;
ƒ information on the sex and age of the applicants is missing;
ƒ applications can relate to more than one individual;
ƒ repeat applications are counted separately, although they are
classified according to the cohort of the first application;
314
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
ƒ no distinction is made between individual and family applications;
ƒ it is not possible to differentiate between second and third instance
decisions;
ƒ because the cohorts under consideration are still ‘young’ no
information on permanent residence permits is yet available.
Some results
It should be noted that all following observations and conclusions only
relate to applications which have been processed under the new aliens act.
Table 8 shows that the proportion of asylum applicants from the four
countries distinguished by the Dutch Ministry of Justice decreased from 41%
(in the 2000 cohort) to 31% (in the 2002 cohort). For the three cohorts taken
together, Afghans were the most numerous group with 6,400 (12%),
followed by Angolans with 5,900 (11%).
Table 8. Asylum cohorts by main countries of citizenship in the Netherlands
Numbers (x 1000)
2000
2001
Percentage of total
2002
2000
2001
2002
11.2
26.5
15.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
Afghanistan
1.8
3.3
1.3
15.9
12.4
8.5
Angola
1.0
3.4
1.5
8.5
12.9
9.7
Sierra Leone
0.9
2.1
1.5
7.7
8.0
9.9
Iraq
1.0
0.9
0.5
8.9
3.6
3.3
10.7
59.1
63.1
68.6
Total
of which
other
6.6
16.8
countries
Source: IND.
Processed under the Aliens Act 2000.
The recognition rates in Figure 9 are provisional for two reasons. First,
because estimates are included for pending cases, and second, because
temporary permits may be withdrawn in future (as in Denmark). The
withdrawal of permits is not estimated, due to the lack of any information
on this phenomenon. As a consequence, the estimated recognition rates have
to be considered as more or less maximum rates.
Bearing in mind these limitations, it can be concluded that the
recognition rate more than halved when between the 2000 and the 2002
cohort: from 22% to 10%. The most dramatic fall was in the recognition rate
for Afghan applicants (from 54% to 11%). On the other hand, it is noticeable
315
T H E S I M
that Iraqis who applied in 2002 had a much higher chance of being granted
leave to remain than their compatriots who had applied in the two previous
years.
The influence of the composition of the asylum flow on the total
recognition rate appears to be limited. Taking the 2001 cohort as the basis for
comparison, adjusting for the composition of the asylum flow produced a
total recognition rate of 21.4% 21.4% (compared to 22.3% non-standardised)
for 2000, and a rate of 10.2% (instead of 10.9%) for 2002.
Figure 9. Recognition rates in the Netherlands by citizenship, 2000-2002 cohorts
%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Afghanistan
Angola
2000
Sierra Leone
Iraq
2001
other countries
total
2002
Source: Ministerie van Justitie, Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, IND Informatie- en
analysecentrum (INDIAC) (2003).
Dealt with under the Aliens Act 2000; reference date: 31st March 2003. Recognition rates
have been partly estimated.
Conclusion
Reviewing this chapter, it is clear that an adequate understanding of
asylum statistics requires both an in-depth knowledge of the asylum
procedure and extensive statistical experience. It is quite conceivable that
politicians, policymakers and journalists do not possess these qualities,
which implies that policy measures and public opinion may be based on
poorly interpreted figures on asylum. To provide users with a clear and
transparent picture of what is going on in this field, a close(r) collaboration
316
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
between the authority responsible for asylum and the national statistical
office is strongly recommended.
Looking at the pitfalls in the statistics on asylum, a distinction should be
made between applications for asylum and decisions on those applications.
As regards the statistics on ‘applications’ the following questions should be
borne in mind.
Who is an asylum applicant?
An asylum applicant is anyone who applies for protection on an
individual basis, irrespective of whether they lodge their application on
arrival at a border or inside the country, and irrespective of whether they
entered the territory legally (e.g. as a tourist) or illegally. However, in some
countries too, children born to asylum applicants and family members who
are later reunited are included in the number of asylum seekers. In the light
of the definition above it is recommended that this should not be done.
What is the difference between applications which have been
lodged and those which are being processed?
An application for asylum is regarded as having been lodged from the
moment the authorities of the state concerned have something in writing to
that effect: either a form submitted by the applicant or an official statement
drawn up by the authorities. In the event of a non-written application, the
period between the statement of intent and the drawing up of the official
statement should be as short as possible. Applications which are being
processed do not include those that are refused in the admissibility
procedure. The statistics should include all the asylum applications which
are lodged, broken down into those which were refused as inadmissible and
those which were processed further. Even when the statistics nominally
cover all the applications lodged it is sometimes questionable whether this is
really so (e.g. applications lodged at embassies or consulates abroad may be
excluded).
What is the difference between cases and individuals?
From a judicial point of view, asylum cases may be more relevant than
asylum applicants. However, from a socio-demographic point of view the
opposite is true. In most countries the asylum statistics relate to individuals,
but in some countries (e.g. United Kingdom) cases (usually families) are
considered, with the possibility of translating the statistics into individuals.
317
T H E S I M
How are repeat applications counted?
Depending on a country’s specific asylum legislation, rejected applicants
may lodge a repeat application if this is justified by developments in the
country of origin. These applications should not be counted as new
applications, but should be considered as prolongations of the first
application. In a cohort-based approach this prolongation can easily be made
visible, but in a period-based approach it is less easy, particularly when the
applications occurred in different calendar years.
How is ‘temporary protection’ handled?
As well as the asylum procedure, most countries can grant temporary
humanitarian protection to a group of aliens when there has been a mass
influx of displaced persons. At a later stage those people may have the
opportunity to apply for asylum. Hence, people protected under this special
regime should not be counted as asylum seekers until the moment they
individually lodge an application for asylum.
Undoubtedly, the pitfalls in statistics on asylum decisions are more
difficult to handle than those on asylum applications. This is because of:
The way asylum decisions are classified
This is probably the most problematic topic. Questions such as: what is a
positive decision? What is a negative decision? What is a non-status
decision? And should non-status decisions be counted as positive or
negative decisions? Are answered quite differently in different countries?
Depending on their specific asylum legislation, some countries limit positive
decisions to the Geneva Convention status, while others also include people
granted subsidiary protection. Furthermore, countries may or may not
consider non-status decisions as asylum decisions, whether these be
negative (e.g. withdrawals and refusals in the admissibility procedure) or
positive (e.g. because of family formation). The recommendations needed to
create some harmonisation in this context are inevitably arbitrary. They are
that all decisions that result in some kind of permit to remain in the host
country should be seen, for the time being, as positive. Furthermore, nonstatus decisions, positive or negative, should be treated as asylum decisions.
318
Chapter 13: A Cohort Approach to Measuring the Asylum Procedure
The distinction between provisional and final decisions on
asylum.
A large number of asylum decisions have a provisional character: a
negative decision may be appealed against, and a positive decision resulting
in a temporary permit to stay may later be rescinded. Finally, all rests on the
final decision. The only way to follow the decision process to its final
conclusion is to adopt a cohort-based approach, as discussed above. Periodbased statistics cover a mixture of provisional and final decisions and are
therefore difficult to interpret. In fact, they mainly inform us about the
degree of activity of the various decision makers during a certain period
(generally a calendar year). The question of how many asylum seekers are
ultimately granted leave to remain can only be answered properly by means
of cohort-based statistics.
Who is covered by the asylum decision.
Asylum decisions should relate to the individual who lodged the initial
request for asylum. Children and family members who are later reunited
should not be included.
It may be concluded that, especially with reference to the statistics on
asylum decisions, the cohort-based approach offers important added value
to our understanding of the asylum process. It also enables the recognition
rates and duration indicators to be calculated properly. Fortunately, a
growing number of countries are producing cohort-based statistics or are at
least preparing to do so. From the country studies presented before, it
appears that, to date, published cohort statistics are rather basic. Information
on factors such as sex and age whether the application is for an individual or
a family, and the duration of the various steps in the asylum process is still
lacking. Furthermore, it has become clear that the great variety of asylum
procedures in Europe currently renders the production of internationally
comparable asylum statistics, either period- or cohort-based, impossible.
Therefore, the conclusion that the available statistical information on asylum
seekers and refuges primarily serves national purposes is justified. Apart
from the often limited availability of data, and frequent changes in
registration methods, definitions, policies, and so on, these statistics may
well be adequate to describe national fluctuations in the number, the
composition, and the degree of recognition of asylum seekers over time. In
an international context, however, the harmonisation of asylum procedures
is a prerequisite for the harmonisation of asylum statistics.
319
Chapter 14
A Cohort Approach to Acquisition
of Citizenship Statistics
Nicolas Perrin
Introduction
As described in Chapter 6 and Chapter 11, published statistics are often
limited to crude numbers. The EU Regulation on migration statistics will not
change this situation, since only limited data on the acquisition of
citizenship are requested (i.e. the number of acquisitions by previous
citizenship). In order to really support the development of information on
naturalisation policies, several improvements are necessary. First, the
amount of available data should be expanded. Second, even if a real
harmonisation of national legislation on citizenship is not anticipated in the
short term, comparative typologies should be introduced to compare the
diversity of situations. Finally, in order to describe the complexity of the
phenomenon, appropriate statistical methods of analysis must be used. The
current use of crude numbers provides little information, and more
adequate indicators could easily be produced using currently available data
or by improving existing data collection. In addition to the computation of
ad hoc indicators, statistical indicators could be derived to specifically
compare and track the process of granting citizenship to foreigners.
In this chapter, we focus on this latter point, the development of simple
statistics dedicated to the analysis of acquisitions of citizenship. More
precisely, we present three possible applications of demographical analysis
(period approach, standard cohort approach and cohort approach using
retrospective data). In order to illustrate the proposal, Belgian data are used
to present a practical example. These approaches are not part of the EU
Regulation, but could be considered as a specific contribution from
demographers.
De facto, since the general demographical framework is similar, our
propositions are quite similar to the analysis of asylum requests described in
Chapter 13. However, there are significant differences due to the
organisation of the two processes, the availability of data, the political
pressure and the more advanced technical level of discussion of asylum
statistics.
T H E S I M
1. Concepts and principles of demographic approaches
1.1 Definition of the event
The EU Regulation on statistics on international migration and asylum
defines the acquisition of citizenship as: ‘natural persons [acquiring] the
citizenship of the EU MS having formerly held the citizenship of another EU
MS or third country or having been stateless’. This definition solves several
problems concerning statistics on acquisitions of citizenship:
ƒ The statistics required refer explicitly to persons and not to
procedures or cases. The latter may be misleading, particularly when
children or adults acquire citizenship by extension of the acquisition
of citizenship of their parent or spouse.
ƒ The statistics required refer explicitly to acquisitions, and not to the
balance of acquisitions and loss of citizenship.
However, from a technical point of view, several questions can be raised
about the meaning of ‘acquisition’ or ‘acquire’. There is no restrictive list of
procedures. This should be interpreted as a willingness to include all kinds
of procedures; however some countries may interpret it as a way of
excluding some procedures that they do not consider as acquisition (e.g.
reacquisitions of citizenship by former citizens who have lost or renounced
their citizenship; acquisitions based on cultural affinity and/or ethnicity;
‘involuntary’ acquisitions of citizenship1).
These questions might be solved by clearly defining the types or
modalities of acquisitions included, or by clearly defining the word
‘acquire’. One suggestion would be to focus on the event allowing foreigners
to become a citizen, whatever the procedure.
1.2 General principles for a period approach
There are large variations in the size of the foreign population between
countries and across time. This means that the crude number of acquisitions
does not indicate the level of acquisition of citizenship by foreigners. In
order to calculate a comparable indicator of the intensity of the
phenomenon, it is possible to build a demographic approach to acquisitions
1 Also known as ‘automatic acquisition’ or ‘attribution’ in some countries, i.e. acquisitions
without application, which occur automatically after certain events such as birth, reaching a
specific age, or marriage
322
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
of citizenship. This type of analysis can be compared to other types of classic
demographic analysis: mortality, marriage, emigration etc., or more similar
events such as the procedure for applying for asylum (Chapter 5).
‘Death probability at a given age measures the probability for the persons surviving at that age of dying before the next age’2. In an analogous
way, acquisition probability at a given age would measure the probability
for foreigners at that age acquiring citizenship before the next age. With a
complete series of acquisition probabilities by age it would be possible to
build an acquisition table, just as death probabilities allow a life table to be
built. Moreover, since age is not one of the main factors governing the
acquisition of citizenship, the reference to age could be omitted, and crude
acquisition rates calculated as a simple synthetic indicator, without reference
to age3.
1.3 General principles for a standard cohort approach
As in the case of the asylum process, a cohort approach may be more
appropriate to the understanding of acquisition of citizenship because of its
close relationship to duration of stay, and because of the very diverse size
and composition of immigration cohorts. By comparison with asylum
cohorts, available data on acquisitions of citizenship are very limited. The
date of application and the dates and outcomes of the different stages of
procedures are usually unknown. The only widely available elements are
final positive decisions (acquisitions) and the date of immigration.
As a consequence of this, a realistic cohort approach to the acquisition of
citizenship would consist of:
ƒ following cohorts of immigrants (immigrants who arrived in the
same year)/cohorts of foreigners born in the country (born the same
year);
ƒ estimating the number of immigrants who acquired the citizenship
of the country after defined periods of stay (one year of residence,
five years, ten years etc.)/estimating the number of foreigners born
in the country who acquired citizenship at different ages;
ƒ estimating these acquisition probabilities by categories (nationality,
age at immigration, sex etc.)
INED, Lexique des termes démographiques, www.ined.fr.
Acquisition rates by age would still be important in a further stage to compare different
populations with different age structures or in different countries, as well as different
nationalities of origin within one country.
2
3
323
T H E S I M
As with the period approach, age is replaced by duration of stay when
the acquisition probabilities of immigrants are produced.
The first main difference between cohort-based and period-based
acquisition probabilities is that the cohort-based approach maintains the link
between immigration and the acquisition of citizenship of immigrants4,
which is essential because acquisition probabilities are strongly dependent
on the duration of stay in the country. The duration of stay is often the main
criterion for acquisition. Age is a correct indicator of duration of stay for
only foreigners born in the country.
The second direct consequence of a cohort approach is the necessity to
differentiate between immigrants and foreigners born in the country. The
concept of ‘duration of stay’, at the heart of a cohort approach, is different in
those two cases: in the case of immigrants, it is the duration of stay in the
country, whereas in the case of foreigners born in the country it is age. The
two types of duration are not strictly comparable. In the first, an event (the
immigration) must occur before the person is entered into the population. In
the second, foreigners born in the country are included in the population
from the very beginning of their lives. The ‘acquisition event’ linked with
those two types of duration is completely different, since legal opportunities
for foreigners born in the country differ from those for immigrants. It
therefore makes sense to study the two groups separately.
This approach is referred to in this text as the ‘standard cohort approach’
in order to differentiate it from the simpler ‘cohort approach using
retrospective data’.
1.4 Using retrospective data in a cohort approach
The data necessary data for a classic cohort approach is not currently
available in most European countries, whereas period-based analysis does
not take into account the impact of past acquisitions and the existence of
immigrants at different stages of their migratory history (recent
immigration, settled immigrants etc.). A possible ‘third way’ consists of
using retrospective information collected in a census, so long as the
questionnaire includes a question on citizenship at birth. This allows for the
4 As in the asylum case, ‘next to period-based data, longitudinal asylum data contribute to a
proper understanding of the complex asylum process. Especially, this holds to the link between
applications and decisions. Because the start and the finish of an asylum process often relate to
different calendar years, the only way to calculate duration factors is to follow the asylum
cohort over the course of time’ (Erf, 2005).
324
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
production of a rate of acquisition among immigrants/foreigners born in the
country. If the questionnaire includes a question on the date of immigration
(year), it is possible to perform a sort of retrospective cohort approach and
calculate acquisition rates, by citizenship, cohort of immigration, duration of
stay, age and sex.
2. Theoretical and practical obstacles
2.1 The concept of ‘eligibility’ and the definition of the
‘population at risk’
In the American literature, an important debate focuses on the definition
of the population eligible to acquire citizenship, the ‘population at risk’ of
other types of studies (Fix et al. 2003). This debate is interesting from a
theoretical point of view, but, in a European context, it may not be easy to
determine this population. In the USA, naturalisation is ‘the main
procedure’ of acquisition, but, in most European countries, there is a
multitude of procedures for granting citizenship with very different
conditions for each procedure (age, duration of stay, place of birth, etc.). We
cannot suppose that foreigners are always eligible to acquire citizenship
after the same period of residence, even within a single country. In Belgium,
for example, although a legal requirement of three years of residence exists,
a large proportion of some groups of immigrants (those who arrived before
the age of eleven, immigrants from some Eastern European or African
countries, refugees, foreigners born in the country) acquire citizenship
before they have been in the country for three years (as a result of a parent
acquiring citizenship, for example). Furthermore, in some cases (e.g.
students), foreigners are not eligible for Belgian citizenship even after three
years’ residence, because they do not have the type of residence permit
needed for eligibility.
As a consequence of the complexity of the legislation on the acquisition
of citizenship in Europe, the population eligible cannot be precisely
identified for statistical purposes. Considering only the population which
has resided for a certain period in a country is certainly not satisfactory from
a technical point of view. One solution is to consider immigrants as ‘at risk’
from the very beginning of their stay, i.e. to consider the whole foreign
population ‘at risk’, even though the probability of acquisition for short-stay
immigrants is very low.
325
T H E S I M
2.2 Is it possible to compare/aggregate different types of
procedure?
Another question arises from the existence of different types of
procedure (naturalisation, registration, extension of acquisition, etc.). In fact,
the total number of acquisitions only imperfectly reflects the diversity of
procedures which allow a foreigner to acquire the citizenship of his or her
country of residence. The same type of questions could arise in an analysis
of asylum, from the fact that refugees may have different statuses: Geneva
Convention, temporary protection, subsidiary protection etc. However, in
order to classify the acquisitions by procedure, it should be possible to
precisely determine the eligibility of individuals for each procedure. Since,
in practice, it is not even possible to determine if someone is globally eligible
to acquire citizenship by at least one procedure, it makes more sense to limit
the statistics to a simple aggregated analysis of acquisitions as a whole
rather than embarking on a complicated analysis of acquisitions by
procedure.
2.3 Is it possible to differentiate steps in applications?
Another approach might be to take into account the fact that some people
never apply for citizenship, while other applications are refused. With
adequate data, it would be possible to calculate the probability of making an
application, the length of the procedure and then the probability of
acceptance or rejection (just as it is possible to calculate duration indicators
and probabilities for the asylum procedure). Unfortunately, the data
necessary for such an analysis are not currently available.
2.4 Limited data availability and reliability
The limitations of the data also restrict the possibilities of adopting a
period approach. More precisely, for a complete (simple) period analysis of
the acquisition of citizenship, the following variables would be necessary:
ƒ acquisitions of citizenship by year and previous citizenship;
ƒ populations at the beginning and at the end of the period (or mean
population by year) by citizenship;
ƒ age and country of birth of ‘new citizens’ and inhabitants (desirable).
Considering the limited nature of this list, this type of analysis should be
feasible for most European states. The Belgian case study is an example. The
only limitation is for countries where the intercensal annual estimates are
unreliable. In these countries, except for census years, provisional data
326
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
would have to be produced and revised after the recalculation of annual
estimates following the census.
Although standard cohort approaches (using a continuous registration of
events) are the most appropriate method of analysis, the first problem in
attempting a cohort approach to the acquisition process is the need to have a
precise knowledge of the population dynamics by citizenship. More
precisely, the following variables are needed for a complete (simple) cohort
analysis of the acquisition of citizenship:
ƒ acquisitions of citizenship by year and previous citizenship plus year
of immigration (for immigrants) or year of birth (for foreigners born
in the country);
ƒ immigration by year and citizenship;
ƒ births by year and citizenship;
ƒ emigration by year and citizenship plus year of immigration (for
immigrants) or year of birth (for foreigners born in the country);
ƒ deaths by year and citizenship plus year of immigration (for
immigrants) or year of birth (for foreigners born in the country);
ƒ (useful, but not necessary) populations at the beginning of the
period by citizenship plus year of immigration (for immigrants) or
year of birth (for foreigners born in the country).
The most difficult data to obtain are currently emigration by date of
immigration, and to a lesser extent, deaths. The probability of foreigners
emigrating again is often higher than that of their acquiring citizenship, and
this modifies the composition of the population substantially. Emigration
estimates are frequently extremely unreliable when they exist, and often
they are simply not available. This may bias the analysis considerably, since
the estimated level of acquisition of citizenship depends on the reliability of
the emigration estimates (as demonstrated by Liang, 1994a).
An example of a standard cohort is given in the Belgian case study.
Currently, it would be extremely difficult to carry out this type of analysis
for all European countries. However, it should be possible to perform such
an analysis in all countries with reliable population registers.
The possibility of conducting a cohort analysis using retrospective data
depends on the census questionnaire: does it include a question on
citizenship at birth? Additionally, for an interesting analysis, does it include
a question on the date of immigration? The required data exist for the 1990
round of censuses in Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Luxembourg,
Portugal and Romania (Haug et al., 1998: 63-64). In the 2000 census round,
Italy, France, Luxembourg and Switzerland had a question on the
acquisition of citizenship. Many other countries could produce the required
327
T H E S I M
data from their population registers. An example of this sort of analysis is
given in the Belgian case study.
3. Comparison of approaches
3.1 Advantages and limitations of the period approach
In comparison with a method using the crude number of acquisitions, the
positive aspect of the period-based approach is the taking into account of the
size of the foreign population currently living in the country (considered as
the population at risk). Furthermore, in comparison with the cohort
approach, it is not necessary to wait for the end of the cohort (death or the
acquisition of citizenship by all members) to estimate the final rates of
acquisition. Finally, the data are relatively easily accessible in Europe
(especially compared with the cohort approach).
However, the period approach does not take into account the diversity of
cohorts of arrivals, despite the decisive impact of duration of stay on
applications for citizenship. Rather, it mixes different types of subpopulation (established and newly-arrived immigrants).
3.2 Advantages and limitations of the standard cohort approach
The standard cohort approach also takes the size of the population
currently living in the country (considered as the population at risk) into
consideration. Emigrations and deaths are also considered. In comparison
with the crude number of acquisitions and the period approach, it considers
acquisitions of citizenship in relation to the size of the cohorts of arrival
and/or birth. The fact that many long-term immigrants will have already
acquired citizenship of the country of residence, whereas newly arrived
immigrants are still foreigners is taken into account.
However, it is necessary to wait until the end of the cohort (death or the
acquisition of citizenship by all member) to estimate the final probabilities,
unless estimates are used (using past cohorts, for example). This data may be
extremely difficult to find.
3.3 Advantages and limitations of the cohort approach using
retrospective data
Like the standard cohort approach, the size of the foreign population
currently living in the country is taken into account in the cohort approach
328
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
using retrospective data. Past acquisitions are compared with the size of the
remaining foreign population, yielding a retrospective view of the
acquisition process. Acquisitions of citizenship are partially considered in
relation to the size of the cohorts of arrival/birth (emigrants/deaths are
excluded). Moreover the fact that many long-standing immigrants have
acquired citizenship whereas newly-arrived immigrants are still foreigners
is taken into account.
Unlike the standard cohort approach, the data needed for the
retrospective cohort approach are relatively easily accessible in Europe.
However, it is still not possible to take emigrations and deaths and their
consequences into account. We cannot consider acquisition rates in relation
to the size of the cohorts of arrivals and/or births (emigrants/deaths are
excluded). For each cohort, we can produce a single probability of
acquisition that related to the length of stay between arrival and the
acquisition of citizenship.
4. Case studies
4.1 A period approach
In order to understand the phenomenon of the acquisition of citizenship
in a period perspective, several extracts from the Belgian population register
have been used. The first refers directly to the acquisition of citizenship and
includes the following variables: year of the event; age; sex; previous
citizenship. The second extract covers the resident foreign population on 1st
January from 1991 to 2000 and includes the following variables: year; age;
sex; citizenship.
The first indicator is an acquisition rate: the number of acquisitions as a
proportion of the foreign population in the country. Figure 1 shows that
there were three peaks in this rate, following three substantial modifications
of the legislation in 1985 (when a new Belgian Code of Nationality came into
force), 1992 (when a law facilitating the acquisitions of citizenship for
foreigners born in Belgium was implemented) and 1999 (when the duration
of stay required for naturalisation was shortened). Moreover, the acquisition
rate can be calculated for subgroups based on age, sex, and previous
nationality. Figure 2 presents some information by age.
329
T H E S I M
Figure 1. The rate of acquisition of citizenship by year (Belgium)
120
100
80
60
40
20
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
1976
1974
1972
1970
1968
1966
1964
1962
0
Source: Registre national, Belgium.
Figure 2. Rates of acquisition of citizenship by age for some selected years (Belgium)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Age
1991-1999
Source: Registre national, Belgium.
330
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
4.2 A standard cohort approach
In order to understand the phenomenon of naturalisation from a cohort
perspective, an extract from the Belgian population register was used. It
covers the acquisition of citizenship by immigrants (foreigners born in a
foreign country) and includes the following variables: date of immigration;
citizenship at the date of immigration; year of emigration or death (if it
occurs before acquisition); year of acquisition of Belgian citizenship.
Since the proportion of immigrants who acquired citizenship by the
length of time since they first arrived in Belgium varies according to the reemigration level, the first simple indicator is acquisition rates by duration of
stay (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Rates of acquisition of citizenship by duration of stay
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
years of resid ence
1991
1992
1993
1996
1997
1998
1994
1995
Source: Registre national, Belgium.
This clearly shows the increasing levels of citizenship acquisition of
recently arrived immigrants. Despite this, it is interesting to note that the
1991 and 1992 cohorts had the highest probabilities of citizenship acquisition
after stays of only one or two years. This is a consequence of a change in
331
T H E S I M
nationality legislation that occurred in 1993. Before that date, aliens
marrying a Belgian citizen could acquire Belgian citizenship by declaration
after six months of marriage. Since 1993, three years of residence in Belgium
has been required.
Using these rates, it is possible to calculate the proportion of immigrants
who have acquired Belgian citizenship. Figure 4 shows that, after 10 years’
residence, 30% of immigrants from the 1991 cohort had acquired Belgian
citizenship. In a more recent cohort (1998), there was a level of 5% after 3
years’ residence. The lexis diagram in Figure 5 is a synthetic presentation of
the probability of acquisition, which allows the evolution of the probability
of acquisition of citizenship to be followed by duration of stay (vertical axis),
period (horizontal axis) and cohort (diagonal axis).
Figure 4. Proportion of immigrants having acquired Belgian citizenship
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
6
40
20
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
année d e résid ence
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Source: Registre national, Belgium.
The impact of three legal changes is highlighted. After 1993, new
immigrants could no longer become Belgian citizens rapidly through
marriage, as had been the case previously. As a consequence, the pattern of
acquisition in 1991 and 1992 differs considerably from that of immigrants
332
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
who arrived after 1992. In 1998 and 1999, two legislative changes facilitated
the procedure of acquisition. More generally, this representation shows the
major impact of two variables: the duration of stay and the cohort of
immigration.
Figure 5. The probabilities of immigrants acquiring Belgian citizenship by duration of stay
(vertical axis), period (horizontal axis) and cohort (diagonal axis)
11
10
708
9
495
duration of stay (years)
8
356
7
6
204
5
114
4
79
3
54
2
39
1
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
year of immigration and year of acquisition
4.3 Using retrospective data
The classic cohort approach presented above cannot be used in most
European countries because they lack sufficiently reliable population
registration systems. However, thanks to a question on citizenship at birth in
their census questionnaires, some countries are able to produce an estimate
of the size of the population that has subsequently acquired their citizenship.
In order to understand the possible uses of data on citizenship at birth,
two extracts from the Belgian population register were used. The first extract
covers citizenship acquisition by immigrants (i.e. foreigners born in a foreign
country) and includes information on: date of immigration; citizenship at
birth; and citizenship in 2002. The second extract covers citizenship
333
T H E S I M
acquisition by foreigners born in Belgium and consists of citizenship at birth
and citizenship in 2002.
The first simple indicator is the proportion of former foreigners holding
Belgian citizenship. For example, on 1st January 2002, 42% of people resident
in Belgium who were not Belgian at birth had become Belgian citizens (31%
of immigrants and 61% of those born in Belgium). This proportion varied
significantly and according to the type of migrant involved (refugee or not,
European or not, age at date of immigration), but was always higher for
foreigners born in Belgium (the second generation) who benefited from
easier procedures (Figure 6).
Figure 6. The level of naturalisation by year and place of birth (Belgium or abroad)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
1930
1925
1920
1915
1910
0
year of birth
born in Belgium
im m igrants
Using the date of immigration, the level of acquisition by duration of stay
can be estimated (Figure 7). This level is clearly linked to the duration of
stay: in general, the longer the stay the higher the level of acquisition of
Belgian citizenship. However, immigrants who arrived before 1980-1985
seem to have a slightly lower level of acquisition of citizenship than those
who arrived later. This may be the consequence of different conditions of
immigration and different compositions by citizenship of origin. The level of
334
Chapter 14: A Cohort Approach to Acquisition of Citizenship Statistics
acquisition also depends on the country of origin: after ten years in Belgium,
only 3% of EU citizens had acquired Belgian citizen-ship, compared to 65%
of Turks, 64% of Poles, 63% of Congolese and 61% of Moroccans.
An important drawback of this method is that it does not take into
account the level of emigration of former immigrants in the calculation of
the acquisition rate.
Figure 7. The level of acquisition of Belgian citizenship by year of immigration and
original citizenship (immigrants only)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2000
1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
0
year of im m igration
Congo-RDC
Marocco
Poland
Turkey
UE 15
Total Mean
Conclusion
In spite of the low level of data availability, it would be relatively easy to
improve the quality and coverage of published statistics on the acquisition
of citizenship. In addition to crude numbers, simple rates of acquisition are
already published by some European institutions (Eurostat and some
national statistical offices). However, in order to improve the understanding
of the evolution of the acquisition process, basic demographic methods
should be used. The cohort approach is certainly the most effective and
appropriate way to take account of the decisive impact of the duration of
335
T H E S I M
stay and the diversity of different cohorts of immigrants. Given the limited
availability of data, a complete analysis of the dynamics of the naturalisation
process is possible only in countries with an efficient system of population
registration. However, the use of widely available retrospective data
(notably information from the census questionnaire) is one possible
alternative.
It is fairly certain that in the short term few if any national statistical
offices will publish regular data on the acquisition of citizenship by cohort.
Nonetheless, it is important to highlight the fact that those methods are
among the best tools currently available to understand and measure the
development of patterns of citizenship acquisition, and to explain the
evolution of these patterns. Since the duration of stay is a central condition
(together with integration) for acquiring citizenship in most states, statistics
should take this factor into account and use appropriate methods (i.e. a
cohort approach). Those methods exist and may be applied easily, even if
only on an ad hoc or irregular basis, to understand how the process of
becoming a citizen works in each country.
336
Chapter 15
Links Between Legal and Illegal Migration
Michael Jandl and Albert Kraler1
Introduction
This study examines whether or not it is possible to identify links
between legal and illegal migration using available statistical material. The
report is structured as follows.
ƒ First, some theoretical arguments about the links between legal and
illegal migration are reviewed.
ƒ Second, the report provides important technical observations on
statistical links between legal and illegal migration data and
examines the overlaps between these two sorts of data.
ƒ Third, the report makes some theoretical and empirical observations
on the difficulties associated with estimating illegal migration stocks
and flows on the basis of available data.
ƒ Fourth, evidence on illegal migration trends in Europe is presented
using new, as yet unpublished, data.
ƒ Fifth, the analysis addresses the theme of this study head on, and
tests various hypotheses on the links between legal and illegal
migration by way of the available statistical evidence.
ƒ Finally, the link between legal and illegal migration flows at the
policy level is examined by way of a case study of Italian-Albanian
migration cooperation.
1. Background
As the EU progressively expands its competence in the area of Justice,
Freedom and Security, the issue of harmonising and even ‘communitarising’
migration and asylum policies is high on the agenda of the European
1 The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for providing useful advice and
comments on earlier versions of this paper: Veronika Bilger, Martin Hofmann, Ilse van Liempt,
Ferruccio Pastore and Jonas Widgren.
T H E S I M
Commission. In pursuing the goal of a common area of freedom, security
and justice, the institutions of the EU face an uphill struggle. National
migration policies are still characterised by a bewildering array of national
regulations and a wide diversity of goals and interests. Adding to the
complexity is the obscure issue of illegal migration and the highly contested
question of what could or should be done about it both at national and at
European levels.
From a policy perspective, it has been deemed necessary to gain a clearer
picture of the size, structure and dynamics of illegal and irregular migration
across EU MS. To this end, the European Commission (especially the DG JLS
and Eurostat) have developed a data-collection system (CIREFI) that
regularly compiles statistics provided by EU MS on enforcement measures
against illegal immigration. Until recently, the contents of the CIREFI
database were not accessible to the public. This has partly changed with the
publication in early 2004 of the first DG JLS Annual Report (Commission of
the European Communities, 2004a).
A central question in the debate on migration policies, both at national
and European levels, is that of whether an expansion of legal immigration
opportunities would lead to a decrease in illegal immigration – or,
conversely, whether the presumed increase of illegal migration to the
European Union during the 1990s has been caused by stricter immigration
policies towards legal immigration. This supposed link between legal and
illegal migration has raised much interest at the policy level and became the
subject of a recent Communication by the European Commission
(Commission of the European Communities, 2004c). The Communication
also forms the background to this paper. It was based on the contributions of
a number of national experts from EU MS and was prepared in a very short
period of time. It calls for several aspects of the topic to be examined more
closely and concludes: “There is a link between legal and illegal migration
but the relationship is complex and certainly not a direct one since a variety
of different factors has to be taken into consideration” (Commission of the
European Communities, 2004c: 20).
It is clear that this analysis cannot purport to answer all the remaining
questions surrounding the debate about the links between legal and illegal
migration. Nevertheless, it aims to provide some important insights into the
topic both from a theoretical/conceptual perspective, and from empirical
evidence which has been gathered from a variety of sources2.
2 It should be noted that the following analysis is largely based on statistics drawn from sources
other than the CIREFI database, due to the particular problems associated with the type of data
338
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
2. Some theoretical observations
Most writers on illegal migration evade the question of what exactly is
meant by ‘illegal migration’, an ‘illegal immigrant’ or an ‘illegal border
crossing’ (Jandl, 2004a: 141-155). A notable exception is Tapinos, who details
six categories of clandestinity based on whether entry is legal or illegal,
residence is legal or illegal and work is legal or illegal (Tapinos, 1999: 229251)3. However, to bring the terms of the following discussion in line with
the common usage of the terms ‘legal migration’ and ‘illegal migration’, for
the purpose of this contribution, we understand ‘illegal migration’ in a very
broad sense. We are particularly interested in those forms of illegality or
quasi-legality that are directly related to immigration control and thus will
primarily look at illegal entries, legal entries with subsequent illegal
residence (visa overstayers, etc.) as well as 'apparently legal entries' (i.e.
entries within a legal entry scheme achieved through deception or fraud
such as 'sham marriages' or 'bogus students').
Having briefly sketched the relevant categories of stocks and flows of
illegal migration, we can now proceed to an examination of the theoretically
possible links between these categories. Figure 1 presents an overview of
five such possible links.
ƒ There could be a direct link between legal and illegal migration
flows.
ƒ There is presumably a strong link between the legal and illegal
residence status of migrants.
ƒ There might be a link between legally (or illegally) resident migrant
populations and flows of illegal migrants.
ƒ There might be a link between stocks of illegal migrants in different
countries (for example, when migrants move to another country in
order to participate in a regularisation programme).
compiled in CIREFI. For more information on this point see the chapter on ‘Statistics on
refusals, apprehensions and removals’ in this volume.
3 The six categories of clandestinity are: 1) legal entry, legal residence but illegal work; 2) legal
entry but illegal residence and illegal work; 3) legal entry, no work but illegal residence; 4)
illegal entry, legal(ised) residence but illegal work; 5) illegal entry, illegal residence and illegal
work and 6) illegal entry, illegal residence but no work. The two other logically possible
categories – 7) legal entry, legal residence and no work and 8) illegal entry but legal(ised)
residence with no work – do not amount to ‘clandestinity’. It is assumed that legal work can be
carried out only when residence is legal (or legalised), and cannot lead to further types of
clandestinity.
339
T H E S I M
ƒ There is the possibility of a link between (increased or decreased)
legal or illegal migration possibilities to one country and illegal
migration flows to another.
Figure 1. The links between legal and illegal migration
EU Country A
Legal migration
Legal Residence
Third Country
1.
Illegal migration
Legal migration
2.
3.
Illegal Residence
5.
1.
Illegal migration
3.
4.
EU Country B
Legal Residence
Illegal Residence
2.
The most straightforward presumed connection between legal and illegal
migration refers only to the first of these five possible links and has been
termed the ‘model of interconnected pipes’. This model postulates that an
increase (decrease) in legal migration opportunities will lead to a decrease
(increase) in illegal migration. However, what is often neglected in
arguments based on this model is that its basic assumption (that the total
migration potential and, implicitly, the total migration flow, is somehow
fixed) does not correspond to reality. For example, it is well known that
actual migration projects are often mediated by intermediate structures – be
they employment agencies, networks of family or friends or human
smugglers recruiting new clients. Therefore, an expansion of legal
immigration opportunities for some may not necessarily lead to a decrease
in the illegal migration of others. It may even lead to more illegal migration,
if illegal migrants rely on migrant networks formed by earlier cohorts of
legal (or illegal) immigrants (the third link in the model) (Boswell and
Straubhaar, 2004:4-7). Moreover, experience suggests that even those
entering on temporary legal migration programmes often switch to irregular
status when their permits expire (the second link in the model) (Epstein et
al., 1999: 3-21).
Moreover – and this may well be the strongest argument against the
model of ‘interconnected pipes’ – the structure of legal immigration that
340
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
states might wish to expand (e.g. IT experts and highly skilled migrants) and
the current structure of legal immigration (e.g. family re-union and
immigration from certain source countries) does not correspond to the
structure of illegal migration. Simply expanding current immigration levels
from a few source countries would not do anything to reduce illegal
immigration from the rest of the world. Thus, there are no strong theoretical
reasons to believe that the simple expansion of legal migration flows would
reduce illegal migration flows (the first link in the model).
The same argument applies to the possible effects of regularisation
campaigns. At first the regularisation will lead to a lower stock of illegal
foreign residents and a higher stock of legal immigrants (the second link in
the model). However, in the longer term, repeated amnesties may well be
considered to be counterproductive, as the expectation of being able to
obtain legal status after entering the country illegally may well create a pull
effect which produces additional illegal migrants4.
These brief theoretical considerations lead us to the larger question of
what statistical links between legal and illegal migration exist. From a purely
statistical perspective, the categories ‘legal migration’ and ‘illegal migration’
at first appear as two wholly distinct concepts. Legal migration denotes that
part of population movements which takes place in conformity with national
and international rules and regulations, while ‘illegal migration’ denotes
that part which is unauthorised, and hence, not documented in official
records. Only the first of these two categories of migration is to some extent
systematically captured by official migration statistics, while the situation in
regard to the second category is much less clear.
There are a number of cases where the two categories overlap. In the next
three sections we will explore three cases where ‘double counting’ may be
especially significant. The issue here will be to see to what extent irregular
migrants are covered simultaneously by two datasets. Before looking at
these cases, however, it is useful to introduce a distinction between (1)
statistics explicitly covering a subset of the universe of persons whose entry
and/or stay is unauthorised on the one hand (i.e. those that will be
discussed below), and (2) datasets that may or may not cover irregular
migrants, but which do not allow irregular migrants to be distinguished
from legal migrants. Censuses and population registers are instances of the
4 Another possibility that must be considered in this context is that by increasing legal
immigration opportunities the potential for fraudulently obtaining ‘legal’ immigration papers
may also increase. Ultimately, of course, both issues are empirical questions that need to be
clarified by empirical research.
341
T H E S I M
second type of datasets. They frequently cover irregular migrants, although
whether and to what extent they do so depends very much on the legal
requirements for and personal benefits of registration (in the case of
population registers) or on methodologies and enumeration practices (in the
case of censuses)5. In any case, the 1998 UN recommendations on migration
statistics explicitly recommend that “because in practice many (…) migrants
in an irregular situation end up staying lengthy periods in the receiving
state, they should be regarded as constituting distinct categories relevant for
the measurement of international migration” (Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, 1998: §43). If good quality information on the legally resident
population (or, more precisely, the legally resident non-national population)
exists, estimates of illegal immigration can be derived from the differences
between the legally present population and the population enumerated in
the census.
3. Statistical observations on regularisations
The clearest case of a statistical link between legal and illegal migration
occurs with regularisation. Before migrants are regularised, their status is,
by definition, at least in some respect ‘irregular’6. With some qualifications,
therefore, regularisation figures can tell us something about the size and
composition of the previously ‘undocumented’ stock of foreigners in a given
country7. However, regularisation figures do not, per se, reveal the volume
of past illegal immigration, for at least two reasons: first, many of the
foreigners who are later regularised may have entered legally (e.g. on a
tourist visa, as family members, asylum seekers or temporary migrants); and
second, migrants who have been regularised in an earlier regularisation
Response rates of irregular migrants may depend, inter alia, on the type of census enumerators
used; the way information is collected (face-to-face interview vs. self-completed questionnaires);
on the definition of the universe of people to be covered (whether there is comprehensive
coverage or an eligibility check through substantive lead questions, e.g. on length of residence
in the country); whether legal status is a formal/informal selection mechanism, and finally,
whether the confidentiality of the information provided by the respondents is respected and the
respondents trust the confidentiality guarantees.
6 This irregularity will usually, but not necessarily, refer to residency status; it may also refer to
the status of foreigners who take up (irregular) work without the necessary authorisation (e.g.
‘working tourists’, family members of regular migrants or asylum seekers).
7 In past regularisations in Italy it has been observed that a number of irregular migrants
normally residing in neighbouring EU MS (e.g. France) tried to obtain a regular status by
applying for regularisation in Italy and moved to Italy just to file their application.
5
342
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
round sometimes fall back into irregularity and apply for renewed
regularisation8.
Regularisations are especially important for southern European
countries. Here, it has been claimed that “the overwhelming majority of
migrants entered without a residence permit, which they managed to obtain
only subsequently, thanks to frequent regularisation schemes (since 1986
five in Italy, five in Spain, three in Portugal, two in Greece and one in
France). Since the mid-1990s, regularisations have usually required applying
migrants to prove that they had a declared job offer by an employer willing
to ‘regularise’ them. Thus, the number of migrants applying for
regularisation can be considered a proxy for the number of undeclared
migrant workers” (Reyneri, 2003). Table 1 summarises the number of people
who availed themselves of regularisation schemes in five countries.
Of these countries, Italy shows most clearly the direct (statistical)
connection between illegal migration, regularisation and legally resident
immigrants (Table 2). While in 2002 there were only around 1.5 million
foreign nationals legally resident in Italy at the beginning of 2003 this had
increased to 2.5 million (Pittau and Forti, 2004: 164).
Table 1. Unauthorised migrants who availed themselves of regularisation schemes (in
thousands)
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Greece
France
1986–87 118.7 1985–86* 43.8 1992–93
39.2
1998–99 371.6 1981–82 121.1
1990
217.7
1991
108.3
1996
21.8
2001*
351.1 1998–99
80.6
1995–96 238.2
1996
21.3
2001
179.2
1998–99 193.2 2000–01 334.0
2002*
695.0
2005*
690.7
Sources: Jandl (2004a), MNS 9/2001, MuB 5/2005, OECD (2004), Reyneri (2003).
*Number of applications received.
As the example shows, there is a clear statistical link between
regularisations and stocks of illegal residents (the latter are, by definition,
8 There is some disagreement about the extent of this phenomenon, for example between Italy
(where relatively few are thought to fall back into irregularity) and Greece (where the majority
of beneficiaries of recent regularisation programmes are thought to have reverted to illegality)
(OECD/Sopemi, 2004: 70).
343
T H E S I M
immediately reduced)9. A more important question, however, concerns the
links between regularisations and future flows of (legal and illegal)
migration. It is likely that regularisations increase both future legal
immigration flows (e.g. by allowing more family re-unifications) and illegal
migration flows (e.g. by reinforcing existing pull factors through the
expectation of future amnesties)10. The possibility of regularisations
attracting other migrants illegally resident in another country (especially
within the Schengen area) has been confirmed by much anecdotal evidence,
although there is little statistical evidence on the extent of this phenomenon.
Table 2. Largest immigrant groups in Italy before and after the regularisation (1.1.2003)
Country of
origin
Regularisations
Romania
143,947
Residents
before
regularisation
(31.12.2002)
95,834
Residents after
regularisation
(1.1.2003)
% increase
239,781
150%
Ukraine
106,921
14,035
120,956
762%
Albania
55,038
168,963
224,001
33%
Morocco
54,221
172,834
227,055
31%
Source: Pittau/Forti (2004: 166).
4. Statistical observations on asylum applications
The second situation in which migrants are frequently counted as both
‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ migrants is that of asylum seekers. In fact, the majority of
asylum seekers in European countries are thought to have entered the
country where they lodge an asylum application in an ‘illegal’ or
unauthorised way. There is both indirect statistical evidence for this and an
emerging body of direct statistical evidence.
The indirect evidence consists of a positive statistical relationship
between the numbers of asylum seekers and the numbers of ‘illegal migrants
apprehended’ by nationality. This relationship is thought to be particularly
strong in countries (such as Austria) in which entering the asylum system is
suspected of being an integral part of human smuggling processes. The
9 However, this is true only in the short term. Over the long term the question arises of how
successful regularisation schemes are in reducing stocks of illegal residents. For a variety of
reasons, their effectiveness is seen as doubtful (OECD, 2004: 69ff).
10 See also the case study of the Belgian regularisation scheme in 1999 (Commission of the
European Communities, 2004c: 9).
344
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
statistical evidence on the link between illegal migration, human smuggling
and the asylum system is presented elsewhere; here we draw attention only
to the fact that, in cases where such a link exists, the same migrants will then
be counted as both illegal migrants and as asylum seekers (Jandl, 2004b).
Direct statistical evidence on the link between asylum and illegal
migration is often suppressed by authorities and is therefore rarely
available. A notable exception are the figures provided by the Hungarian
Office of Immigration and Nationality (Table 3), which show that around
80% of asylum seekers have been counted as having entered the country
illegally. For statistical purposes this means that the same people are
counted twice, first as apprehended illegal migrants and second as asylum
seekers. It should be noted that the Hungarian case, due to its location on the
eastern edge of the European Union, might be a special one. However, in the
absence of reliable (direct or indirect) statistical evidence on the
phenomenon of double counting, its extent in other countries cannot be
assessed.
Table 3a. Asylum claims in Hungary, by legality of entry and by major countries of origin,
2002
Country of origin
2002
Entrants claiming
Those who entered
asylum
illegally
2,348
2,173
2,008
1,817
352
309
213
169
182
169
160
135
130
114
125
114
142
119
97
61
Afghanistan
Iraq
Bangladesh
Somalia
Vietnam
Iran
Sudan
Nigeria
Turkey
Yugoslavia
Total, all countries
6,412
5,728
of origin
Source: Hungarian Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN).
Proportion
93%
90%
88%
79%
93%
84%
88%
91%
84%
63%
89%
In addition to the direct and indirect statistical evidence on the
relationship between illegal migration and asylum from national statistical
sources, more direct evidence is becoming available at the EU level as the
EURODAC system progressively becomes fully operational. The EURODAC
system started on 15th January 2003 and compares fingerprints taken from
asylum seekers in country X with those of asylum seekers and migrants
345
T H E S I M
apprehended for illegal border crossing in country Y. The first annual report
on the implementation of the EURODAC system became available in May
2004. It contains detailed statistics on the number of ‘hits’ (i.e. fingerprints of
asylum seekers and illegal migrants which have previously been stored in
the system, demonstrating that the person has previously applied for
asylum or has been apprehended for illegally crossing a border)
(Commission of the European Communities, 2004b). The EURODAC system
found that out of 246,902 asylum seekers whose fingerprint data had been
cross-checked, 14,960 (6%) had applied for asylum in at least one other
country – which means that they had been double-counted in the Europewide statistics on asylum seekers. A further 4,287 (1.7%) people had applied
more than once in the country submitting the fingerprints to the Central
Unit (‘local hit’). It is noted that – as the system started with an empty
database of fingerprints at the beginning of the year – these percentages are
likely to increase further.
Table 3b. Asylum claims in Hungary, by legality of entry and by major countries of origin,
2003
Country of origin
2003
Entrants claiming
Those who entered
asylum
illegally
469
348
348
268
205
181
170
141
125
87
113
109
112
54
105
102
79
36
74
67
Afghanistan
Iraq
Bangladesh
Somalia
Vietnam
Iran
Sudan
Nigeria
Turkey
Yugoslavia
Total, all countries
2,401
1,843
of origin
Source: Hungarian Office of Immigration and Nationality (OIN).
Proportion
74%
77%
88%
83%
70%
96%
48%
97%
46%
91%
77%
The report also shows that 673 fingerprints of asylum seekers in country
X matched with fingerprints of persons apprehended for illegal border
crossing in country Y. However, as only 7,857 fingerprints of illegal bordercrossers were recorded during Year 1 of EURODAC’s operations (in a
system with planned storage capacity for up to 400,000 such fingerprints
annually), these statistics do not reveal much about the size of the
phenomenon. The same is true for the number of fingerprints of illegal
346
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
migrants apprehended in Country X matching with stored fingerprints of
asylum seekers in Country Y (there were 1,181 such ‘hits’ out of 16,814 data
transactions; these ‘Category 3 data’ are not stored in the system). Thus,
while the implementation of the system is not yet sufficiently well
developed to show clear trends in the links between illegal migration and
asylum, they do show that such links exist. As the report notes, the data
show that “a large percentage of illegal (sic) apprehended in Germany, have
applied for asylum in Austria; the same applies for the UK” (Commission of
the European Communities, 2004c: 12).
5. Statistical observations on immigration fraud
Immigration fraud refers to a whole class of phenomena, where
apparently legal entry and/or residence permits are obtained by way of
deception, fraud or in contravention of the spirit of immigration laws.
Statistically, however, these unlawful migration movements often appear as
‘legal immigration’ (if the deception is successful). As obtaining entry rights
and legal residence titles in such manners is obviously unlawful behaviour,
usually punishable by law, these activities are kept strictly secret and are
thus largely hidden from public view and, hence, any meaningful statistics.
And because would-be immigrants often pay high prices for fraudulent
documents and other deceptive entry channels, but would not do so if the
chances of success were slim, the number of undetected cases is likely to far
exceed detections.
Criminal investigations by the police and border guards have revealed a
great number of ways in which would-be immigrants try to gain entry and
residency by way of fraud. Among these are:
ƒ the procurement of false or falsified entry and residence documents
(e.g. visas, residence permits or passports);
ƒ obtaining visas under false pretences (e.g. entering as tourists, or
with business visas obtained through the use of fake ‘guarantees’
from companies) and then overstaying the duration of the visas;
ƒ the conclusion of ‘sham marriages’ (or ‘marriages of convenience’),
concluded only in order to circumvent regular immigration
channels;
347
T H E S I M
ƒ the use of fake ‘adoptions’ of adults11, usually against payment by
the ‘adopted’;
ƒ the enrolment of would-be immigrants in college or university
courses, without there being an actual intention to study at the
chosen institution;
ƒ the use of the status of ‘au pair’ for long-term immigration purposes.
There are many more ways of fraudulently obtaining documents for the
purposes of entry to and residence in a third country, but in each case
estimating the extent of the phenomenon is inherently problematic.
However, there are indications that the use of such methods is growing
across the EU12. For immigration statistics this means that we may in fact be
counting a substantial proportion of ‘irregular’ migration as ‘regular’
immigration. Conceptually, there are good reasons for distinguishing fraud
cases not involving faked entry documents13 (i.e. cases admitted on false
pretences) from illegal migrants proper, because these people are
documented, possess a valid authorisation to enter or stay in the country,
and have a clearly defined legal status that may be withdrawn only after due
process of law.
6. The difficulties of measuring illegal migration
Unfortunately, there are no uniform standards across countries for any of
the statistical indicators that could be used for making informed estimates of
stocks or flows of illegal migration to or within the European Union. As well
as the substantial problems in the availability and quality of data, there are
even greater conceptual problems associated with the use of these data
sources for the estimation of illegal migration stocks and flows.
Nevertheless, there are several statistical methods available for the
11 Laws on adoption sometimes allow the adoption of adults and it has been shown that this is
often used, against payment by the “adopted”, for circumventing immigration regulations. In
Austria, for example, this practice became so widespread, with hundreds of documented cases
of adoptions of adult third-country nationals, that at the beginning of 2003 a legal amendment
to the Aliens Law was introduced that was explicitly aimed at preventing “fake adoptions”.
12 To give an example, in 2003, the Hungarian Border Guard apprehended 13,533 persons for
committing a criminal offence related to illegal migration. Of these, 2,690 were apprehended for
using false or falsified official documents (a 42% increase on 2002). For this and other data on
Central and Eastern Europe (Futo and Jandl, 2004).
13 Technically, people with faked documents must be considered ‘illegal’ in the usual sense,
since they lack valid authorisation to stay.
348
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
estimation of levels and trends of illegal migration that are likely to produce
better results than mere ‘informed guesstimates’.
As indicated above, estimates on illegal migration generally refer to two
distinct statistical concepts: stocks of illegal residents and flows of illegal
immigrants. Methods of estimating the size of stocks and flows are
examined separately below.
6.1 Estimating stocks of illegally resident foreign populations
6.1.1 ‘Residual’ estimation techniques
‘Residual’ estimation methods (based on the differences between census
data and other registries of immigrants) are carried out regularly in the US
to estimate the stock of undocumented immigrants. However this method is
not usually used in European states because the censuses are thought to
seriously undercount irregular migrants in Europe.
A notable exception to this general observation is an estimate of the size
of the illegally resident population in Spain based on recent census results. It
should be noted that the Spanish case is special in that all immigrants
(regular and irregular) have a strong incentive to register in municipal
population registers, as this confers certain benefits such as the free
provision of health care, while there are hardly any disincentives connected
to registering as these lists are not used for removing unauthorised residents
from the country. At the time of the census in 2001 the number of foreigners
registered in Spain stood at 1.572,017, which meant a difference of almost
half a million people between those who were listed as having a valid
residence card or permit (1.109,060) and the foreigners who registered in the
census14. Four years later, at the beginning of 2005, the Spanish government
estimated the number of illegal residents in Spain to be between 800,000 and
820,000, again using a ‘residual’ estimation method based on the difference
between the number of foreigners enumerated in the communal registers
(3.7 million, of which around 3 million were of working age) and the
number of foreigners in possession of a valid residence card or permit (2.1
million). As it turned out, the number of foreigners applying for
regularisation in the spring 2005 regularisation campaign was 690,679, thus
14 Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE, National Statistics Institute) of Spain (2002), available
at: http://www.ine.es/ inebase/cgi/um (4.2.2003)
349
T H E S I M
only about 14% below the estimated total15. Although these numbers are still
subject to interpretation (for example, on the number of illegal residents who
did not apply for regularisation), we might conclude that in the case of Spain
the ‘residual’ estimation method produced fairly reliable results.
Whether that is also true in other contexts, however, is doubtful. One can
at least expect that in the absence of special incentives for registering (in the
case of Spain for obtaining access to health care) the propensity to register
with public authorities is lower. This observation could also help with
evaluating a recent (2005) estimation exercise for the United Kingdom
(Woodbridge, 2005). While the derived estimates have several other
drawbacks as well16, the main structural difficulty with the use of UK census
data lies in the fact that “no explicit undercount estimates are available for
the foreign-born population”. Thus, the report proposes a range of three
different estimates (310, 430 and 570 thousand) calculated with three
different undercount estimations for the unauthorised foreign-born
population (0, 45.4 and 102.3 thousands). However, there is no hard
evidence on why the undercount could not be larger than 102.300 (it cannot
be lower than zero) and why, consequently, the unauthorised population in
the UK in 2001 could not have been larger than the highest estimate.
6.1.2 ‘Multiplier’ estimation techniques
Most statistical methods used to produce estimates of undocumented
migrants are based on the ‘multiplier principle’. Basically, these methods
assume that the size of the unknown variable to be estimated (such as the
stock of undocumented migrants) has a stable relation to a variable that can
be measured (such as the stock of legally resident migrants). The problem is
then redefined as finding the ‘right’ multiplier (Vogel, 2002:70).
One particular variant of multiplier methods consists of surveying
‘experts’ on the subject and combining their estimates into an appropriate
multiplier. This method has been tried in Switzerland through a survey of
employers in particular branches of business (Piguet and Losa, 2001). The
authors surveyed 800 employers in Switzerland, asking them to estimate the
15 MuB – Migration und Bevölkerung. Newsletter (5/2005), Netzwerk Migration in Europa e.V.
(ed.), Berlin, June 2005, 3
16 For example, as there are no complete registers on the stock of legally resident migrants, this
variable has to be estimated from highly uncertain flow figures. Moreover, this “new” estimate
is based on 2001 census data, when EU nationals where still defined as nationals from the thenEU-15, thus having little validity for the period after the accession to the EU of ten new EU MS.
350
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
percentage of illegally employed foreigners in their own branches of
business. Using the survey results, they then estimated the number of
illegally employed foreigners in Switzerland. While this method is likely to
result in better approximations to the ‘real value’ of multipliers than simple
guesswork, the results depend to a large extent on the way the guesstimates
are combined statistically.
A pioneering study carried out in the Netherlands has used the
capture−recapture method to estimate the size of the illegally resident
population in Dutch cities (van der Leun et al., 1998) This method has its
origin in population biology, which is used to estimate the size of a
population. The population is counted at two specific moments in time at
the same location. The size of the population not present at that specific
moment and location can be estimated using the Poisson distribution, and so
the total population can be counted17. In their study the authors analysed
1995 apprehension data from the police, and on this basis estimated the ratio
of illegally to legally resident immigrants in four cities (Amsterdam,
Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht). The result provides an estimate of the
minimum total number of illegal immigrants in the four cities. A more
recent study using the same methodology has been carried out by
Engbersen. These authors analysed data on police apprehensions from 25
police regions in the Netherlands for 1997–2000 (Engbersen et al., 2002).
In principle, the validity of the capture–recapture method is superior to
that of any of the other methods available. In evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of the method, however, much depends on the quality of the
police records. Moreover, an important assumption in the use of this method
is a homogenous population. Heterogeneity (when capture rates for
individuals differ according to sex, age, social status, living area etc.) makes
the method more difficult to apply. Capture rates are also dependent upon
time, and behaviour can change over time (irregular migrants may, for
example, pay less attention or become better at avoiding capture).
6.1.3 Evidence from regularisation data
Perhaps some of the best sources of data on illegal migration are figures
on regularisations. To assess the value of data collected during
To illustrate, consider the following method of counting fish in a pond. First, you catch 1,000
fish, mark them, and set them free again. Then you catch another 1,000 fish and examine them.
If 100 (10%) of them are marked, then the first 1,000 fish caught equals 10% of the total
population, so there are – presumably – 10,000 fish in the pond.
17
351
T H E S I M
regularisation programmes for the estimation of illegal residence, several
things have to be borne in mind. The raw data on applications for
regularisation (or permits granted) provide only a limited amount of
information on the true extent of illegal residence in the country at any point
in time, mainly for three reasons. First, not all illegal immigrants can or will
take advantage of regularisation programmes. Second, regularised
immigrants, who are awarded only a limited residence permit, or a
residence permit connected to employment, frequently fall back into
irregularity. Thus, for example, illegal entry and ‘overstaying’ at the end of a
period of legal residence (including a period of ‘legalised’ residence) are
both major channels of admission to Italy (Pastore, 2002: 1). A third problem
is that the analysis of regularisation data usually works on a closed-country
assumption, while there is some evidence that regularisation programmes in
one country also include the regularisation of some segment of the irregular
foreign population in contiguous countries. For example, according to an
Italian expert on the subject, each time Italy has launched such a
programme, a large number of foreigners living in France, Switzerland and
Austria have moved to Italy just for the time of the amnesty18.
6.1.4 Estimates of the extent of illegal foreign employment
Another method which should be mentioned here is to estimate the
illegal foreign population by estimating the participation of migrants in the
informal sector of a country (i.e. the extent of illegal employment of
foreigners). Such estimates can in turn be based on data on illegal foreign
workers apprehended at worksites or on indirect estimation methods such
as the amount of cash in circulation or the amount of electricity consumed.
There are, however, no indications that the resulting estimates of numbers of
illegal foreign residents have smaller margins of error than those derived
from other methods, while they do display even greater variation than other
estimates19.
Estimations based on the number of illegal aliens apprehended (should
be marked typographically as a separate heading)
For example, in past regularisations in Italy it has been observed that a number of irregular
migrants normally residing in neighbouring EU MS (e.g. France) tried to obtain a regular status
by applying for regularisation in Italy and moved to Italy just to file their application. (Sciortino,
2003: 2).
19 For more information, as well as examples of such estimates (Jandl, 2004a).
18
352
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
Finally, a few remarks should be made on the value of data on illegal
aliens apprehended in a country during the course of one year. Such data are
sometimes available from police services, as distinct from data on persons
apprehended for illegal border crossings (although the data published in the
CIREFI database do not distinguish between the two datasets). There are
two main problems with using such data for estimating stocks of aliens
illegally present within a country at any point in time. First, data on
apprehended aliens illegally present in the country in the course of a year do
not, strictly speaking, refer to the stocks of aliens illegally present at any
point in time. And second, more than other apprehension data, such data are
dependent on the intensity of law enforcement efforts during the course of a
year. In short, data on apprehensions within a country can easily be
‘produced’: if higher numbers are desired, a few additional police raids on
the suspected workplaces or living quarters of illegal foreign residents will
do the trick. Such data are therefore not much use for drawing general
conclusions on the size of the illegally resident foreign population at any
point in time.
6.2 Estimating illegal migration flows
The only methodology explicitly used for estimating flows of illegal
immigrants to Europe is the projection of border apprehensions, using an
estimated ratio of border apprehensions to (non-detected) illegal entries20.
While this method does have its advantages (not least the absence of
alternative methods) three technical problems should be pointed out here.
The first one is the variable quality and availability of apprehension data in
Europe. No valid generalisations can be made about this, as much of the
statistical material collected by border enforcement agencies is kept secret
and only a few countries in Europe regularly publish their border
apprehension data21. At the same time, recently published data from the
CIREFI database on ‘apprehensions of aliens illegally present’ do not
distinguish between apprehensions of aliens illegally present inside the
country, and those at or near the borders that aliens have unsuccessfully
20.Heckmann and Wunderlich use an assumed ratio of 1:2 border apprehensions to illegal
entries to the EU (Heckmann and Wunderlich, 2000: 167-182). A more elaborate description of a
different methodology that includes the same ratio of border apprehensions to illegal entries is
outlined by Widgren (Widgren, 2002).
21 Likewise, the data on illegal migration collected by the Inter-Governmental Consultations on
Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia (IGC) are not
publicly available.
353
T H E S I M
tried to cross illegally. These data can therefore not be used for estimations
based on border apprehensions.
The second methodological problem associated with the use of border
apprehension data for the estimation of illegal migration flows is that border
apprehension data usually refer to cases rather than to distinct individuals.
Thus, if an individual is apprehended more than once while trying to cross
an international border illegally, he or she will be counted more than once in
apprehension statistics. Until recently, there was no statistical evidence to
assess the extent of this phenomenon. In the absence of any meaningful data,
some analysts assessed the phenomenon of repeated entry attempts to be so
prevalent as to make any estimation based on border apprehension data
meaningless. However, recent findings suggest that this conceptual problem
could be less important than hitherto assumed22.
The third methodological problem that should be taken up here is the
estimation of the ‘correct’ multiplier. In the past, the most commonly used
multiplier for the estimation of actual illegal crossings on the basis of
apprehension figures has been two (‘two pass for each one caught’)23. In
addition, analysts have also resorted to ‘criminological’ methods based on
the likely chances of being caught while attempting to cross a border
illegally, arriving at similar multipliers.
Estimating the ‘correct’ multiplier becomes even more problematic when
generalising estimated multipliers across countries or even for the whole of
the EU. In some cases, the ‘correct’ multipliers are in all likelihood
significantly higher then the commonly used multiplier of two. In other
cases (Greece, for example), applying a multiplier of two would almost
certainly be misleading due to the high mobility of a large part of the
irregular migrant population, who frequently leave the country to return
days, weeks, months or years later (so-called ‘circular migration’)24. To
22 For example, data provided by the border police of the Czech Republic demonstrate that in
2003 only 11.5% of illegal entrants were persons repeatedly apprehended in 2003. This figure
was slightly lower than in 2002 (Futo and Jandl, 2004).
23 A formal model for deriving estimated multipliers based on the probability of apprehension
is presented by Massey and Singer. This model is then applied to an estimated probability of
apprehension of 0.35 derived from a survey in 22 Mexican communities in Mexico and the US
and the recorded apprehensions by the INS between 1965 and 1992 (Massey and Singer, 1995:
203-213).
24 One indicator of the circular nature of illegal migration in Greece is the extraordinarily high
level of expulsions of those not in possession of valid residence documents. Between 1992 and
1995, these numbered over 225,000 a year and for 2001 it was expected that expulsions would be
as high as 270,000 (Baldwin-Edwards, 2001).
354
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
arrive at ‘better’ estimates, therefore, either the multiplier has to be adjusted
downward or the statistical base must be reassessed.
To summarise the discussion, there are a number of conceptual problems
associated with the estimation of illegal migration flows on the basis of
border apprehension data. Nevertheless, the available material can and has
been used – with all the caveats raised in the preceding discussion in mind –
for producing rough estimates of illegal migration flows. Rather than
repeating the whole exercise at this point, only the results will be
reproduced here. The total volume of illegal migration flows to Europe in
2001 was estimated at 650,000 for the EU15 and at 800,000 for the (now)
EU25 (Jandl, 2003). Finally, three additional remarks are in order: First,
estimates are made on the basis of adjusted border apprehensions and are
likely to undercount so-called visa-overstayers25. Second, while the
estimated volume of illegal border crossings provides some indication of the
total volume of gross illegal immigration, the net flows of illegal immigrants
cannot be estimated on this basis but are likely to be much lower. Third,
when seen in a time perspective, border apprehensions (and the estimations
based on these data) are influenced not only by the actual volume of illegal
border crossing attempts but also by a number of external factors26. Finally,
the quoted estimates of total illegal migration flows refer to the year 2001;
newer evidence on border apprehensions in Central and Eastern European
countries indicate that the number of border apprehensions in 17 Central
and Eastern European states has decreased by more than a third since then
(Futo and Jandl, 2004).
7. Some cautious qualitative conclusions on illegal
migration trends
We will now turn to the question of whether the available statistical
material can provide us with enough evidence to broadly gauge trends in
illegal migration. As already mentioned, there are a large number of
problems associated with the use of in particular, border apprehension data
Visa-overstayers are counted only when detected at borders when trying to leave a country.
For example stepped-up border enforcement efforts by some states, which could result in
more apprehensions in the short term and fewer apprehensions in the long term by frustrating
further attempts of illegal crossings; or, alternatively, the removal of border controls within the
Schengen area; visa exemptions or, alternatively, new visa obligations for certain nationalities;
and, last but not least, new – as yet undetected – modus operandi of human smugglers that result
in decreased probability of apprehensions.
25
26
355
T H E S I M
for the estimation of levels and trends of illegal migration flows. Most
importantly, border apprehension data measure only those who fail to cross
a border illegally, not those who succeed. And the probability of
apprehension will probably change over time, depending on the number
and effectiveness of border guards (Massey and Singer, 1995). Most
apprehension data are case-specific, which means that they count the
number of apprehensions, not the number of people apprehended (people
can thus be apprehended more than once).
Figure 2 Trends in border apprehensions in European Countries: Countries with recently
falling trends
60.000
50.000
40.000
30.000
20.000
10.000
-
1990
1991
Austria
1992
1993
Croatia
1994
1995
1996
1997
Czech Republic
1998
1999
Germany
2000
2001
Italy (1)
2002
2003
Slovenia
Moreover, the relationship between trends in border apprehensions and
actual trends in illegal migration are likely to be strongly influenced by
policy changes. In Europe over the past decade, two such policy changes
stand out and would need more scrutiny. The first is the abolition of
(internal) border controls within the Schengen area. The second is the
(increasingly harmonised) rules for visa obligations for third countries. For
356
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
example, since 2002, nationals of Bulgaria and Romania, two major source
countries of irregular migrants during the 1990s, no longer need visas to
enter the Schengen area.
Figure 3 Trends in border apprehensions in European Countries: Countries with recently
rising or stable Trends
35.000
30.000
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
-
1990
1991
Cyprus
1992
1993
1994
H ungary
1995
1996
1997
Poland
1998
1999
Slovakia
2000
2001
Spain (1)
2002
2003
Sw itzerland
Sources: (Futo and Jandl, 2004).
(1) Spain: Apprehensions by boat only.
All these qualifications are valid and many more could be mentioned (for
example, section above on the increased use of forged or fraudulently
obtained documents for migration purposes). Nevertheless, if enough
indicators on illegal migration are available, if these indicators are likely to
bear some relation to the actual illegal migration phenomena under
consideration, and if these indicators all display similar trends over time,
then, taken together, the statistics on border apprehensions will provide
some indications on actual trends in illegal migration to Europe.
As can be seen from Figures 2 and 3, there is indeed enough statistical
evidence to make an informed judgement on illegal migration trends in
Europe over the last decade. The result is somewhat surprising, as it runs
357
T H E S I M
counter to the impression conveyed by much of the media: the data available
do not support the argument that illegal migration has been constantly
rising over the past decade but, in fact, indicate large ups and downs: There
was an early peak of apprehensions in the early 1990s, followed by
significant decreases in the mid-1990s and a second peak in the late 1990s (or
in some cases in the early 21st century). Since then, several countries have
reported significant decreases in border apprehensions (Germany, Austria,
Croatia and Slovenia), while a few others have recently experienced
increases in border apprehensions (Cyprus, Slovakia, Spain and
Switzerland). To better visualise these trends, the twelve countries for which
data are available have been divided into two categories: those with recently
falling trends (Figure 2) and those with recently rising or stable trends
(Figure 3). Overall, the total number of border apprehensions in the twelve
countries represented here have fallen by about 30% between 2001 and 2003.
8. Testing the links between legal and illegal migration
As we have seen in the previous sections, the establishment of statistical
links between volumes and trends in legal and illegal migration is inherently
difficult and complicated by a number of factors. Above all, the inquiry is
hindered by the near-total absence of adequate data for the estimation of
volumes and trends of illegal migration. On the other hand, even data on
legal migration (stocks and flows) are often of poor quality, making the
combination of the two datasets exceedingly unreliable. In what follows, we
shall nevertheless make an exploratory attempt at correlating and
interpreting data on legal and illegal migration phenomena, applying both a
time-series and a cross-sectional approach.
8.1. Flows of legal and illegal migration over time: the example
of Germany
Perhaps the most widespread hypothesis on the link between legal and
illegal migration is contained in the model of ‘interconnected pipes’. This
model, which we will call Hypothesis 1, postulates that an increase
(decrease) in legal migration opportunities will lead to a decrease (increase)
in illegal migration. We have already addressed some theoretical arguments
about this argument above, and will therefore move straight to the statistical
evidence.
358
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
Table 4a. Legal immigration of foreigners and aliens apprehended for illegal border
crossing in Germany, 1991-1996 (thousands)
1991
Gross immigration (1)
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
925.3
1211.3
989.8
777.5
792.7
708.0
23.6
44.9
54.3
31.1
29.6
27.0
39
27
18
25
27
26
Border Apprehensions (2)
Ratio of (1)/(2)
Sources: Migrationsbericht 2004, own calculations.
In order to assess the evidence, whether decreases in immigration levels
(presumably due to more restrictive immigration regulations) are negatively
correlated with border apprehensions (reflecting an increase in illegal
immigration levels), we look at data on (gross) immigration to Germany in
the period 1991– 2002 and compare them with data on border apprehensions
in the same period (Table 4a and 4b).
Table 4b. Legal immigration of foreigners and aliens apprehended for illegal border
crossing in Germany, 1997-2003 (thousands)
Gross immigration (1)
Border Apprehensions (2)
Ratio of (1)/(2)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
615.3
605.5
673.9
649.2
685.3
658.3
608.8
35.2
40.2
37.8
31.5
28.6
22.6
20.0
17
15
18
21
24
29
30
Obviously, the two sets of data display enormous differences in scale (i.e.
the levels of recorded legal immigration were between 15 and 40 times
larger than the level of aliens apprehended for illegally crossing the German
border). We have already noted the difficulties associated with estimating
actual levels of illegal migration flows on the basis of the apprehensions of
aliens detected while trying to illegally cross a border and will therefore not
dwell on this issue here. Rather, we will look at the trends in the two sets of
variables, assuming that border apprehensions do indeed reflect trends in
illegal migration flows. To facilitate comparison, in Figure 4 the two sets of
data are converted to trend lines depicting levels of (gross) immigration and
border apprehensions as percentages of their 1991 levels.
It is clear from the figure that the two sets of variables are not inversely
related but are, in fact, somewhat positively correlated. After large increases
in legal immigration levels at the beginning of the 1990s, legal immigration
declined until 1998 and has more or less stabilised since then at around 65%
of its 1991 level. Border apprehensions increased sharply until 1993, then
359
T H E S I M
declined until 1996, then increased again until 1998 and have since declined
to some 85% of their 1991 level.
Figure 4 The relationship between total immigration of foreigners and border apprehensions in Germany
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Gross Im m igration
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Bord er apprehensions
Sources: Migrationsbericht 2003, BAFL
Total immigration to Germany is, of course, made up of many different
components and citizenships. The easy counter-argument to the analysis just
presented would therefore be that immigration opportunities for certain
nationalities (especially for the main source countries of illegal migrants)
have declined further than those for other categories of migrants. Before
rejecting Hypothesis 1 on the basis of aggregate data, we will therefore look
at the immigration levels of specific citizenships. To do this, we will examine
in more detail the data for the top ten citizenships of those apprehended for
illegally crossing the German border between 2001 and 2003 (Table 5).
Table 6 shows the level of gross immigration from these countries in the
ten-year period from 1994 to 2003. It shows that overall levels of legal
immigration from these countries were remarkably stable (with an overall
decrease of about 25% in 2003 compared to 1994). Four countries saw
decreases in immigration levels between 1994 and 2003: Turkey (– 23%),
Roumania (–30%), Russia (–35%) and Yugoslavia (with large increases in
360
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
1998 and 1999 during the Kosovo crisis and subsequent decreases
amounting to – 66% in 2003 compared to 1994). Five countries saw increases:
Ukraine (+16%), Bulgaria (+28%), India (+77%), China (+189%) and Iraq
(+194%). Data on Afghanistan do not cover the whole period.
Table 5. Top 10 countries of citizenship of ‘aliens apprehended’ at the German borders
2001–2003
FR Yugoslavia
1,739
8.7%
2,172
9.6%
2,521
8.8%
%
change
2001–
2003
-31.0%
Russia
1,473
7.4%
1,129
5.0%
823
2.9%
79.0%
China
1,371
6.9%
1,017
4.5%
471
1.6%
191.1%
Ukraine
1,362
6.8%
1,125
5.0%
1,325
4.6%
2.8%
Iraq
944
4.7%
1,835
8.1%
2,216
7.8%
-57.4%
Bulgaria
636
3.2%
1,091
4.8%
815
2.9%
-22.0%
Afghanistan
610
3.1%
1,083
4.8%
2,075
7.3%
-70.6%
Turkey
n.a.
n.a.
1,809
8.0%
2,184
7.6%
n.a.
Romania
n.a.
n.a.
1,118
4.9%
2,916
10.2%
n.a.
Citizens of:
2003
% of
total
2002
% of
total
2001
% of
total
n.a.
n.a.
839
3.7%
1,354
4.7%
n.a.
Top 10 Total
8,135
40.7%
9,452
41.8%
10,246
35.9%
-20.6%
Overall Total
19,974
100.0%
22,638
100.0%
28,56
100.0%
-30.1%
India
Source: German Federal Border Guards
A comparison of Tables 5 and 6 shows that there is no systematic
correlation between levels of legal immigration from a particular source
country – or changes in those levels – and levels (or trends) of border
apprehensions of nationals of those countries. In fact, the source country
with the highest increase of border apprehensions between 2001 and 2003
(China, +191%), also had one of the highest rate of increases in legal
immigration (+189%), while other countries (Afghanistan, Romania, Turkey
and Yugoslavia) have seen decreases in both legal immigration levels and
border apprehensions.
We can now summarise the evidence: over time, at least in the case of
Germany, there is no statistical evidence to support Hypothesis 1. In fact,
aggregate data on the total immigration of foreigners and border
apprehensions have both seen decreases since 1991. Over the same time
period, detailed data on trends in legal immigration from the top 10
countries of citizenship of aliens apprehended for illegally crossing the
361
T H E S I M
German border show a variety of trends but little evidence that could
support the model of ‘interconnected pipes’.
Table 6. Legal immigration by source country for top 10 countries of citizenship of aliens
apprehended for il-legal border crossing in Germany in 2001–2003 (thousands)
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
% change
1994–2003
24.1
-30.4%
2003
34.6 27.2 19.3 16.5 18.5 20.1 25.3 21.1 24.6
Romania
FR
63.5 54.4 43.1 31.4 60.1 88.2 33.3 28.6 25.8 21.8
Yugoslavia
8.0
9.2 12.3 18.2 12.5
6.0
2.0
6.6 12.7 14.7
Iraq
64.8 74.6 74.3 57.1 49.1 48.4 50.5 56.1 58.6 49.7
Turkey
Afghanistan
n.a.
8.6
7.0
5.5
4.8
5.9
6.4
6.9
3.9 n.a.
(*)
6.7
5.6
5.0
5.3
6.8
9.3
9.4
9.2
5.2
6.3
India
17.6 18.5 16.7 15.5 16.6 17.7 21.2 23.9 24.0 20.3
Ukraine
103.4 107.4 83.4 67.2 58.6 67.7 72.2 79.0 77.4 67.3
Russia
6.4
6.5
5.3
8.2 10.5 13.5 13.2 13.5
10.5
8.1
Bulgaria
6.2
7.4
7.9 10.9 15.6 20.8 19.1 16.7
5.8
5.5
China
307.3 317.2 276.0 227.5 233.9 281.6 254.0 276.8 268.6 228.4
Total 10
Source: Migrationsbericht 2004, except (*) www.migrationinformation.org
-65.7%
193.7%
-23.3%
n.a.
77.3%
15.7%
-34.9%
28.0%
188.6%
-25.7%
Table 7. The total number of asylum applications and aliens apprehended for illegal
border crossing in Germany, 1991−2003 (thousands)
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Asylum
256.1 438.2 322.6 127.2 167.0 149.2 151.7 154.4 138.3 117.6 118.3
applications*
Border
23.6 44.9 54.3 31.1 29.6 27.0 35.2 40.2 37.8 31.5 28.6
apprehensions
* includes first time and repeat applications
Sources: Migrationsbericht 2004, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge
91.5
67.8
22.6
20.0
We have seen above that there is both direct and indirect evidence on
close links between illegal migration and the asylum system. We can now go
one step further and compare the time series on German border
apprehensions used in the preceding section with data on asylum
362
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
applications in Germany27 in order to test the claim that illegal migration
trends are linked to trends in asylum-seeking in European countries. As can
be seen from Table 7 and Figure 5 (again converted to trend lines), the two
time series have indeed moved in close parallel. We can thus formulate
Hypothesis 1a, as follows: for the period under review, at least in the case of
Germany, trends in illegal migration (as measured by data on border
apprehensions) are positively correlated to trends in gross legal immigration
as well as to trends in the number of asylum applications.
Figure 5 The relationship between asylum applications and border apprehensions in
Germany 1991-2003
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Asylum applications*
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Bord er apprehensions
Sources: Migrationsbericht 2003, BAFL
* includes first and repeat applications
27 Detailed data on asylum applications in Germany can be obtained from the German
Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), available at: http://www.bamf.de/templat
e/statistik/anlagen/hauptteil_1_auflage_12.pdf (24.3.2005). It should be noted that for reasons
of comparability, the figures on asylum applications in Germany presented here include both
first time applications and repeat applications over the whole period. Since 1995 the BAMF
(formerly the Federal Office for Refugees or BAFL) has separated the data on first time and
repeat applications.
363
T H E S I M
8.2. Stocks and flows of legal and illegal migrants: Sweden and
Austria in 2001
After looking at flow data on legal and illegal immigrants over time, we
will now look at a cross section of immigrants according to citizenship. To
do this, we use the data on ‘apprehended aliens illegally present’ provided
by CIREFI (as published in the first Annual Report on Asylum and
Migration of the European Commission). As already mentioned, these data
do not reveal much about volumes and trends in illegal migration as they
combine data on border apprehensions and in-country apprehensions.
However, when broken down by citizenship, these data do reveal something
about the structure of illegal migration per country of origin and destination.
Hypothesis 2 is a corollary of Hypothesis 1 and suggests that more
(fewer) legal immigration opportunities for a given source country will lead
to less (more) illegal immigration from that source country. For lack of other
data, we can only test this hypothesis by looking at actual volumes of legal
immigration and actual volumes of apprehensions of aliens illegally present
(or illegally crossing borders) for the 10 most important source countries of
apprehended aliens. If the hypothesis is true, greater shares in legal
immigration should be correlated with lesser shares of apprehended aliens.
On the basis of data for Sweden in 2001, Hypothesis 2 must also be
rejected. In fact, there is a strong positive correlation between the percentage
of legal immigrants and the percentage of apprehended aliens coming from
a particular country (R Square = 0.82). The country of citizenship accounting
for the largest share of apprehensions (Iraq, 27% of all apprehensions) also
accounted for the largest share of all legal immigrants among the top 10
countries of apprehension.
At first sight, this is an astonishing result. However, the data can be
explained by Hypothesis 3, that flows of illegal migration are largely
determined by social and ethnic networks of co-ethnics already present
within the country of destination. This implies that larger proportions of
(legally resident) foreigners in a country should be positively correlated with
larger proportions of apprehensions of illegal migrants. The Swedish data
for 2001 supports this hypothesis. In fact, the correlation between stocks of
legal immigrants and apprehensions is even greater (R Square = 0.89) than
that between flows of legal immigrants and apprehensions.
Finally, we can also ask how stocks and flows of legal immigrants are
related among the citizenships that account for the majority of apprehended
illegal aliens. If strong migration network effects were present, we would
expect a positive relationship between these stocks and flows. There is
indeed a strong correlation (R Square = 0.82).
364
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
We have thus come full circle in the analysis and interpretation of
statistical correlations of data on legal and illegal migration in Sweden and
can now formulate Hypothesis 2a. This is that higher numbers of
apprehended illegal aliens are positively correlated with higher numbers of
legal immigrants due to network effects associated with the stocks of
immigrants already present in the country.
The second case we will look at (and for which enough data are available
to merit the exercise) is Austria in 2001. To test Hypotheses 2 and 2a, we
again correlate shares of legal foreign immigrants and shares of
apprehended illegal aliens. However, with the Austrian data there is no
statistical relationship (R Square = 0.01). This means that the hypothesis can
be neither confirmed nor refuted. Likewise, when testing Hypothesis 3, there
is no statistical relationship between stocks of legally resident foreigners and
apprehensions in Austria (R Square = 0.03), so we can neither confirm nor
refute Hypothesis 3 on this basis.
However, Austrian data on apprehended illegal aliens from selected
countries may provide some indication as to why there is no statistical
correlation between apprehensions of aliens illegally present and either
flows or stocks of legal foreigners in Austria, when these relationships are so
strong in Sweden. For many citizens of the countries that have the highest
number of apprehensions, Austria is only a transit country on the way to
their final destination28. Many Afghan nationals, for example, simply
‘disappear’ after having lodged an asylum application; many Romanians
and Ukrainians were apprehended on their way to or from Italy, where a
large community of their fellow nationals is working in the informal
economy. By contrast, due its geographical location, Sweden is unlikely to
be only a transit place for many of the apprehended illegal aliens. At the
same time, Sweden is a society with a relatively high level of social control
(e.g. in the workplace) and networks of family and friends are likely to play
a larger role for aliens illegally present in Sweden. This last conjecture is
supported by the high correlation between stocks of legal immigrants and
apprehensions in Sweden.
Finally, Austrian data on legal foreign immigrants from selected
countries shows that the correlation between stocks and flows of legal
immigrants in Austria is strongly positive (R Square = 0.89), even among the
top 10 nationalities of apprehended aliens illegally present in Austria in
2001.
28
For data supporting this observation (Jandl, 2004b).
365
T H E S I M
The results of our statistical tests of the theoretical hypotheses can be
summarised as follows. In no case were higher levels of legal immigration
flows linked to lower levels of illegal migration flows (as measured by
various apprehension data) – indeed in Sweden, the exact opposite was true.
The German time-series data suggest that lower levels of legal immigration
occurred in parallel to lower levels of illegal migration flows (as measured
by border apprehension data) and the Swedish data also suggest a positive
relationship between stocks of legally resident foreigners and illegal
migration stocks and flows. Both the Austrian and the Swedish data indicate
a strong link between legal migration stocks and flows among the top 10
countries of origin of apprehended illegal aliens.
9. The policy link: cooperation with countries of origin and
transit
Within the European Union there has been an increasing tendency for a
number of years now to adopt a concerted and comprehensive approach
towards both legal and illegal migration, including enhanced cooperation
with countries of origin. Chapter 1 contains an account of the development
of these policies and their implications for the production of statistical data.
In brief, it is important here to mention that following the entry into force of
the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999, which had set the stage for
progressively transferring more competencies in the field of asylum and
migration to the EU, a special meeting of the European Council took place in
Tampere in October 1999. The Tampere Summit, which was devoted
exclusively to Justice and Home Affairs matters called, inter alia, for
partnerships with countries of origin. Since then, the issue has been
periodically addressed at successive European Councils. The European
Council of Laeken in December 2001 called for the integration of policy on
migratory flows into the European Union’s foreign policy29. The European
Council of Seville in June 2002 again stressed cooperation with countries of
origin and transit of migration flows, including return and readmission
agreements, although it stopped short of proposing sanctions against
uncooperative third countries as had previously been proposed by some EU
MS30. It urged, however, that any future cooperation, association or
equivalent agreement with the European Union should include a clause on
Presidency Conclusions on Justice and Home Affairs, Laeken, 17/12/2001.
Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Council 21 and 22 June 2002, SN 200/1/02
REV 1.
29
30
366
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
joint management of migration flows and on compulsory readmission of
illegal immigrants. Moreover, it called for an assessment of relations with
third countries which did not cooperate in combating illegal immigration,
and noted that insufficient cooperation by a country could hamper the
establishment of closer relations between it and the Union. Finally, the
European Council of Thessaloniki, in June 2003 again ascribed ‘top political
priority to migration’ and called for the prompt conclusion of readmission
agreements with key third countries of origin of illegal migrants, as well as
the promotion of further cooperation with them31.
Given this high level of attention paid to migration cooperation with
countries of origin and transit by European policy makers, the question
quickly becomes: what is the evidence on the efficiency of migration
cooperation? Does migration cooperation really have a decisive influence on
illegal migration flows? In other words, is there a clear link between legal
and illegal migration flows at the policy level?
As we will see in the following example, the answer seems to be a
qualified yes if the policy is comprehensive (i.e. encompassing both legal
and illegal migration flows as well as development aid and other aspects of
cooperation) and well coordinated (both at the intra-ministerial level and at
the international level). Perhaps the best example in the European context of
positive migration cooperation between a country receiving large numbers
of illegal migrants and a pertinent source and transit country is provided by
the relationship between Italy and Albania, which we will now briefly
review.
Since at least 1997, Italian foreign policy regarding migration has been
focusing on the conclusion and maintenance of workable readmission
agreements with most neighbouring and nearby countries and on “active
cooperation in the fight against illegal migration”32. As a reward for
concluding readmission agreements, Italy has offered to sign bilateral
agreements on seasonal work. The agreements include various forms of
cooperation and development assistance and are part of an integrated
package.
31 Presidency Conclusions – Thessaloniki, 19 and 20 June 2003, 11638/03 3, available at:
http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/ eurocouncil/index.htm
32 This was already an official policy in Italy long before it was enshrined in the 2002
immigration law (known as the Bossi–Fini law). However, the 2002 law made it an explicit
policy priority to reward countries which ‘actively collaborate in the fight against
undocumented migration’ to Italy. The mechanisms of this ‘reward’ are closely related to the
quota system (Caloff and Piperno, 2004: 55-71).
367
T H E S I M
The first such agreement was concluded with Albania in 1997, and was
signed together with the readmission agreement. An important part of the
cooperation has been technical assistance (e.g. equipment and training for
the Albanian police and the establishment of a radio network so that
Albanian police forces could communicate with each other) as well as some
additional development assistance33. The main component of the deal,
however, was the establishment of an additional quota for immigration to
Italy. This so-called ‘preferential quota’ is determined annually and is
conditional on continued cooperation in the fight against illegal migration.
Other countries that have concluded readmission agreements with Italy and
have benefited from the ‘preferential quota’ system include Morocco,
Tunisia, Somalia, Egypt, Nigeria, Moldova, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh (Table
8).
Table 8. Preferential migration quotas for specific nationalities in Italy (1998–2004)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
3,000
3,000
6,000
6,000
3,000
Albania
1,500
1,500
3,000
1,500
2,000
Morocco
1,500
1,500
3,000
3,000
2,000
Tunisia
500
3,000
–
–
–
Others
6,000
6,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
Total
Source: Ministry of Labour quoted in (Caloff and Piperno, 2004).
2003
1,000
500
600
7,400
9,500
2004
3,000
2,500
3,000
11,900
20,400
How has this specific migration cooperation influenced illegal migration
flows from Albania to Italy? During the 1990s Albania became a major
source and transit country for illegal migration flows to Italy (Martin et al.,
2002: 103-118). Shortly after the downfall of communism in 1990, there were
several large waves of unauthorised migrants from Albania to Italy (and
Greece). The majority of illegal migrants arriving in Italy had used the
services of smugglers, who had transported them across the Otranto channel
to the Apulian coast of Italy, just 70 km across the Adriatic sea at its
narrowest point. In 1997, after the chaos following the collapse of the
pyramid investment scheme led to major rioting and the looting of military
arsenals, another wave of mass emigration followed. Emigration was slowed
when an Italian-led multinational mission (mission ‘Alba’) restored order. It
33 Linking aid to migration containment can also be seen as part of the conditionality policy.
Albania is one of the major recipients of Official Development Assistance (ODA – € 600 million
between 1991 and 2004). (Caloff and Piperno, 2004:63).
368
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
was further reduced through joint Italian–Albanian patrols along the
Albanian coast. During the war in Kosovo, accompanied by the mass flight
of Kosovo Albanians to Macedonia and Albania in spring 1999, there was
another wave of migrants and war refugees crossing the short distance from
Albania to Italy by boat. At the end of the war in Kosovo, the war refugees
in Macedonia and Albania quickly returned to their homes, but the arrival of
illegal migrants by boat on Italian shores continued, albeit at a lower level.
The winning strategy developed by the authorities was, in the end, that
which hit at the heart of the smuggling business in Albania: the confiscation
of boats34. At Italy’s instigation, a law was passed in Albania in 1997
forbidding the production, use, sale and importation of rubber dinghies
(used by smugglers to board and land migrants in shallow waters). The law
was not put into practice for a long time, partly because there was a lot of
corruption involved in the human smuggling business. However, from 2001
onwards, the law was applied more rigorously and the destruction of vessels
was completed by the summer of 2002. As can be seen from Table 9 the
measures brought illegal migration from Albania to Italy almost completely
to a halt.
The statistics also indicate a shift of illegal migration routes to Italy by
sea. By 2002/03, the main entry route for illegal arrivals by boat was via
Sicily (including the island Lampedusa, close to Libya). The keen interest of
the Italian government in establishing migration cooperation agreements
with Libya has run into a number of difficulties and has so far not produced
the desired results. Thus massive boat arrivals from Libyan shores, tragic
shipwrecks and deaths at sea continued to dominate the media throughout
the summer of 2004.
Table 9. Apprehensions of illegal migrants arriving by boat in Italy, 1998−2003
1998
1999
28,458
46,481
Apulia
873
1,545
Calabria
8,828
1,973
Sicily
38,159
49,999
Total
Source: Italian Ministry of Interior.
34
2000
18,990
5,045
2,782
26,817
2001
8,546
6,093
5,504
20,143
2002
3,372
2,122
18,225
23,719
For a detailed description of smuggling activities to Italy by boat (Monzini, 2004).
369
2003
137
177
14,017
14,331
T H E S I M
Conclusion
It is clear that this report could not answer all the questions surrounding
the links between legal and illegal migration. Apart from the obvious fact
that statistical correlations by themselves can never provide proof of causal
relationships, the statistical database available is simply too weak to allow a
comprehensive and detailed investigation. Nevertheless, the large amount of
empirical evidence gathered and interpreted from various conceptual
perspectives should give fresh impetus to the collection and analysis of more
data on illegal migration. It is hoped that the indications provided
throughout this report will provide some guidance in this ambitious task.
The main results of the report can be summarised as follows:
ƒ It is important to keep in mind that there is not one but several
possible links between legal and illegal migration. Based on a
definition of the relevant categories of stocks and flows of illegal
migration, at least five such links are theoretically possible:
ƒ there could be a link between legal and illegal migration flows but
statistically these flows appear to be positively, rather than
negatively, correlated;
ƒ there is apparently a strong link between the legal and illegal
residence status (stocks) of migrants;
ƒ there might be a link between legally (or illegally) resident migrant
populations and flows of illegal migrants;
ƒ there might be a link between stocks of illegal migrants in different
countries (for example, when migrants move to another country in
order to participate in a regularisation programme);
ƒ there is the possibility of a link between (increased or decreased)
legal or illegal migration possibilities to one country and illegal
migration flows to another country.
Contrary to the impression conveyed by much of the media, the data
available do not support the argument that illegal migration flows have been
constantly rising over the past decade but, in fact, indicate large rises and
falls. There was an early peak of border apprehensions in the early 1990s (for
those countries where these data are available), followed by some decreases
in the mid-1990s and a second peak in the late 1990s (or, in some countries,
in the early 21st century). Since then, most countries have reported
significant decreases in the numbers of border apprehensions over the last
few years. However there are also some exceptions to these trends.
There is no statistical evidence supporting the claim that legal and illegal
migration flows are inversely related (the so-called ‘model of interconnected
pipes’). In fact, an examination of German time-series data indicates a
370
Chapter 15: Links between Legal and Illegal Migration
positive relationship between the two flows, as both have been broadly
decreasing since the early 1990s. Likewise, a cross-sectional analysis of
Swedish data indicates a positive relationship between illegal migration and
legal migration stocks, indicating the importance of migration networks in
illegal migration processes. There is also a close statistical correlation
between levels and trends of border apprehensions and asylum applications
in Germany.
Finally, a case study demonstrates that the ‘policy link’ between legal and
illegal migration can be highly effective. In contrast to the assumed
‘automatic linkages’ between legal and illegal migration flows, the focus of
the case study is on the prevention of illegal migration through positive
migration cooperation (including the provision of a ‘preferential quota’ for
legal migrants conditional on continued cooperation in the fight against
illegal migration). It has been shown that this form of positive cooperation
has brought the arrival of illegal migrants by boat from Albania on the coast
of Apulia in Italy to an almost complete halt.
371
Conclusion
Improving the quality of measurement
of migration and international protection
in the European Union
Michel Poulain and Ann Singleton
Since the Tampere Council meeting in 1999, the need for better statistics
to support the development of European policy on migration and
international protection has been clearly emphasised in official EU
documents. During the intervening period, DG JLS and Eurostat have led
the Commission’s work on developing a proposal for an EU Regulation on
data collection in the field of migration and international protection. This
proposal was adopted in September 2005 by the European Commission and
is now under discussion in the Council of the European Union and the
European Parliament. Once agreed under the co-decision procedure, the EU
Regulation will require all EU MS to produce annually, in some cases
monthly, a full set of statistics on international migration and international
protection. It will explicitly request reliable figures and metadata in order to
make clear how far the data provided may be considered comparable at EU
level.
Many problems will remain for some time to come. Certain statistical
data on international migration and asylum are unavailable in all EU MS.
Available data are often unreliable, mainly due to under-coverage. Data that
may be considered reliable are not necessarily comparable at EU level,
because of the variety of data sources, definitions and concepts used.
Despite these problems, a key conclusion of all the discussions during
national meetings and of all investigations undertaken in the THESIM
project appears to be that the implementation of the EU Regulation is
feasible.
This book, which is an essential product of the THESIM project, provides
a complete overview of the situation regarding data collection in each of the
EU MS. It identifies obstacles to the implementation of the EU Regulation
and provides some insights to help countries meet the requirements of
providing reliable and comparable data to Eurostat. It is recommended that
the conclusions and recommendations below be borne in mind during the
finalisation of the forthcoming implementing measures for the EU
Regulation.
T H E S I M
Use of complementary sources to improve data reliability
First, efforts should not only be focused on the availability of data. It
would be nonsense to use the data on a comparative base for any purpose,
including for policy support, without enough information to prove that they
are sufficiently reliable. The use of different and complementary data
sources is recommended.
Improving data reliability
Each country should evaluate the reliability of the data extracted from
each source, in order to provide the best estimate of the requested statistical
figures. Complementary data sources may be used, depending on the
specific population groups e.g. nationals, other EU citizens, third-country
nationals with permanent or temporary residence permits, refugees and
persons with other protection status, asylum seekers and for estimates of
undocumented migrants. The requested metadata should include complete
information on each data source used, including the underlying laws, the
practical administrative procedures involved, the level of coverage and the
degree of accordance with EU-recommended definitions and concepts.
Improving population stock figures
As far as figures on the population stock by country of citizenship or
country of birth are concerned, the key point is the identification of the
country of usual residence for two groups of persons: nationals living
temporarily abroad and non-nationals living temporarily in the country. For
these groups of persons the administrative or legal country of residence may
be different from the country of usual residence and the key point is to
clearly identify international immigrants and emigrants in order to include
or exclude them from the population stock. The requested figures on the
stock of population by citizenship should be based on the country of
citizenship and not on (ethnic) nationality or any other concept used to
characterise the population with foreign background. To enumerate the
population stock by country of birth, clear instructions are needed on how to
define this country of birth in case the border has changed over time.
Meeting the definition of an international migrant
For statistics on international migration flows, the EU recommended
definition of an international migrant should be applied as precisely as
374
Conclusion
possible. This is based on the twelve months intended or actual duration of
stay criterion. Data based on intended duration of stay should be considered
preliminary data, whatever the time criterion used for duration or in the
absence of such a time criterion. Where the follow-up of migrants is possible
through population or aliens registers, these data should be replaced one
year later with final data based on the actual ex post duration of stay and the
one-year criterion. For nationals living abroad temporarily, efforts should be
made in all EU MS to ensure that all emigrations for one year or more are
registered. The declaration procedure should be simple and easy to do and
incentives should be found to improve the coverage. (Registration in
consulates abroad may be an effective way to improve this situation). For
third-country nationals needing a residence permit, the residence permit
database may be a good alternative source of international migration flow
data. More specifically, all persons who have been granted a residence
permit for at least one year, as well as those whose temporary permits have
been renewed so that the total authorised duration of stay surpasses one
year, should be counted as immigrants. If the total duration of authorised
stay is at least one year and renewal has not been requested, the person
should be included in the immigration flow of the previous year and
counted as an international emigrant at the end of the validity of the permit.
Improving the comparability of residence permit data
The implementation measures should also specify that statistics on
residence permits refer only to first issue permits corresponding to
immigration into the country. Therefore first permits issued for a new
reason without immigration (e.g. a residence permit for study being changed
for a residence permit for family reunion) should be counted separately.
Only permits delivered to non-nationals effectively residing (or having
immigrated) in the country should be counted. Residence permits issued to a
person who is abroad and who does not subsequently immigrate into the
country should be excluded. In all cases the statistics should refer to the
number of persons and not to the number of cases or documents.
Improving acquisition of citizenship data
As far as acquisitions of citizenship are concerned, only those persons
concerned who live in the country should be counted, excluding persons
granted citizenship although living abroad. Similarly, persons receiving
citizenship at birth should not be included in the statistics on acquisition of
citizenship. Given the wide diversity of procedural types of change of
375
T H E S I M
citizenship, metadata should clearly specify the procedures covered and the
possible problems of under-coverage, while special attention should be
devoted to including all types of acquisition of citizenship. The
implementation measures should also foresee the possibility of asking for
disaggregation by type of acquisition, sex and/or age in order to be able to
compare similar categories of acquisition. From a demographer’s point of
view (although this point is not included in the EU Regulation) statistics on
renunciation or loss of citizenship should also be collected, in order to
ensure the consistency of stock and flow statistics for both the national and
non-national populations.
Improving asylum statistics
The situation regarding data collection on asylum is better than that for
migration flows and residence permits. However some improvements
should occur when implementing the EU Regulation. Asylum applications
should be defined as lodged applications (including those refused at the
border and/or those refused in the preliminary, accelerated or admissibility
procedure). Numbers included should not be limited to processed
applications only. Only first (new) applications should be counted. Repeat
applications should be seen as prolongations of first applications and
registered as such. The applications under consideration should distinguish
between pending in preliminary procedure, pending first instance in normal
procedure, pending second instance in normal procedure and, if applicable,
pending third instance in normal procedure. Subsidiary protection is used as
an umbrella term for all kinds of asylum decisions that result in a temporary
leave to remain in the host country, including humanitarian grounds,
protection status, non-refoulement, etc. However, some countries may label
such decisions as negative. For the sake of international comparability, more
precise classification is needed in line with EU legislation on international
protection. Temporary protection should be considered separately from
asylum and statistics on temporary protection should not be subsumed
under those on asylum. In practice, the concept of return is defined and
named in various ways, e.g. voluntarily return, forced removal, deportation,
effected expulsion, supervised departure, etc. Because this variety easily
leads to confusion it is recommended that a harmonised typology be
developed for return data. Furthermore, the status of disappeared rejected
asylum applicants should be clear. They should not be considered as
returned but should be distinguished separately. As far as migration flow
statistics are concerned, all asylum seekers with pending requests should be
counted as international immigrants after one year of stay in the country, as
376
Conclusion
requested by the EU and UN recommendations. Those asylum seekers
considered as international immigrants should also be counted as
international emigrants if a final negative decision has been taken on their
request and no temporary protection status has been granted. Finally,
special attention should be paid to promoting the collection of cohort-based
asylum data as this is the best way to support EU policy in the field of
asylum and protection.
The limited possibilities of improving data on the implementation of
enforcement measures
For the so-called CIREFI data collection on enforcement measures against
illegal immigration, the situation is less favourable concerning the
implementation of the EU Regulation. Their reliability and comparability are
difficult to evaluate. In fact data on refusals of entry to any of the EU MS
should at least provide the reasons for such refusals, while data on
apprehensions of illegal migrants should be disaggregated at least according
to reason for apprehension, border or in-country apprehension, nonnationals or nationals (e.g. for trafficking purposes), directions of movement
(apprehension upon entering or leaving the territory), border section and
direction (to/from which country). Data on removed aliens should at least
provide categories of removed aliens and type of removal (e.g. expulsion,
deportation order, monitored departure, etc.).
In conclusion, although some obstacles exist, the investigations carried
out under the THESIM project and developed in this book prove that the EU
Regulation may be implemented in most of the twenty-five EU MS within a
reasonable timescale. In order to facilitate the implementation of the EU
Regulation, a task force should be created at national level in each EU MS,
including all potential data providers under the collaborative responsibility
of both the European Migration Network NCP and the NSI. In most EU MS
a collaborative effort has already been launched. This initiative should be
strongly encouraged in the future. The participation of representatives of the
NCPs in the different meetings organised by DG JLS in Brussels and of the
NSIs in the annual working parties organised by Eurostat in Luxembourg
will not be sufficient for those countries in which a real improvement in the
data-collection system is required to meet the EU Regulation. In these cases,
bilateral task forces may also be organised in order to improve the
comparability of the relevant non-national population stock and migration
flow data between a pair of EU MS. This would also encourage the bilateral
exchange of data between countries. Finally, in anticipation of future
statistical needs on the integration of third-country nationals residing in the
377
T H E S I M
EU MS, the implementation measures for the EU Regulation should devote
particular attention to hitherto unexploited data sources on the socioeconomic characteristics of migrants. The availability of comparable
statistics in the EU MS on indicators of integration should also be identified
and checked, particularly regarding the integration into the labour market of
non-EU citizens residing in the EU MS.
378
Country Reports
T H E S I M
These twenty-five country reports present the situation in each country,
largely as captured at the time of national meetings held between September
2004 and June 2005, with some revisions at the time of writing in 2005. The
structure and content of the reports builds on that developed in earlier work
on inventories of data definitions, sources, and collection systems (Poulain,
Debuisson and Eggerickx, 1990; Salt, Singleton and Hogarth, 1994; Poulain,
1997; Salt and Singleton, 1995; Singleton and Albiser, 2002).
The information contained in each of the following reports was compiled
as the result of a rigorous and thorough exercise at national level. Initially, a
preliminary questionnaire was circulated by the THESIM team. Information
was collected from a wide range of sources, from all the main data providers
and responsible officials in all relevant ministries. Responses were followed
up by email, phone and letter and draft country reports were prepared and
circulated. Then twenty-five country meetings were held to examine the
draft reports.
The authors and editors would like to thank the National Contact Points
of the European Migration Network and the National Statistical Institute
who organised the meetings in each country, bringing together, in some
cases for the first time, the responsible officials from all relevant ministries.
The detailed content of each national report was discussed and the draft
reports were subsequently revised. Some additional information has been
added to the country reports from the official websites of national ministries
and NSI.
In such a rapidly changing field it is inevitable that some information will
already have been overtaken by events and that changes in policy and
legislation at national and EU level will result in changes to administrative
practices, data-collection systems and in data definitions and categories. The
authors hope, nonetheless, that these reports will be of practical use to data
suppliers and users for some time to come. We apologise for any
misunderstandings of the reality of the situation in each country. Any reader
who wishes to correct or update the information contained in the reports is
invited to write to Michel Poulain at [email protected].
380
Country Report
Belgium
Nicolas Perrin and Michel Poulain
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The database for recording information on the population is the Registre
national (in French, RN), Rijksregister (in Dutch) or National Register (in
German and English). The Ministry of the Interior is responsible for
maintaining this centralised registration system. At the local level,
municipalities are responsible for the registration of their inhabitants. The
municipal population registers serve to update the RN and the local
municipal register consists of mirror copies of the RN.
A unique PIN is attributed to all inhabitants either at birth or at
immigration. For Belgian citizens, the main recorded variables are: name,
surname(s), sex, date and place of birth, address of residence, matrimonial
status, PIN, profession, composition of the household, place and date of
death. Additionally, the following information are requested for foreigners:
Immigration Service Number, citizenship, refugee status, country and place
of origin (place of residence before immigration), limited duration of stay,
type, number and validity period of the work permit or professional card,
return right, information on visa, EU citizen inscription on voting lists, date
of recognition as a refugee. For asylum seekers, some additional variables
are collected: family members dependant on the asylum seeker concerned,
stage of the asylum procedure, place of the Public Centre for Social
Assistance in charge of the asylum seeker.
The municipal population register contains more information than the
centralised database RN. Most of the municipalities use the possibility to
add some variables such as the name and PIN of the parents but the list of
possible additional information is limited and the data can only be used by
local authorities where the person concerned is living. Consulates or
embassies are in charge of the registration of Belgian citizens living abroad
within a subset of the RN named the ‘Consular Population Register’.
T H E S I M
Every person having his/her usual residence in the country will be
registered if:
ƒ the person resides legally in the country;
ƒ for more than three months;
ƒ and has declared his/her arrival.
These conditions exclude two important types of populations: short-term
migrants and persons living irregularly in Belgium. The coverage of the
register may be questioned concerning populations submitted to a less
constraining regulation as are the European citizens. Moreover, some
specific categories, the so-called ‘privileged foreigners’ are excluded from
the usual registration and only ‘mentioned’ in a special subset of the RN at
their request: diplomats and assimilated persons, agents of European
institutions and their families, civil servants and soldiers from SHAPE and
NATO. Doing so they can benefit from every advantage linked to the
registration (residence certificates, certificates of household composition and
so on). Their registration is done directly by their institutions to the Belgian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Thereafter the Ministry transfers the information
to the municipalities in order to update the population registers and
‘mention’ the employees of these institutions in the RN. From 1st February
1995, asylum seekers have no longer been included in traditional population
registers. They are registered by municipalities in a specific register called
Registre d’Attente (Waiting Register), a simple subset of the RN. The structure
of the Waiting Register is similar and some specific information is simply
additionally recorded. The law specifies clearly that persons registered in
this register must not be taken into account in the determination of the legal
population of municipalities.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
The municipality of residence for somebody moving from abroad to
Belgium is determined on the same basis as for somebody moving from
another municipality within Belgium. Both immigrations and emigrations
should be recorded in the RN for all Belgian citizens and aliens except for
some cases detailed hereafter.
Belgian citizens who had their previous residence abroad and enter the
territory of Belgium will be registered in the RN if they intend to stay more
than three months and declare their return. A foreigner must declare his/her
arrival to the municipality of residence within eight days. However this
foreigner will be registered as immigrant in the RN only if he/she intends to
stay more than three months in the country. All foreigners, including EEA
citizens, must have a valid residence permit in order to stay more than three
382
Country Report: Belgium
months. The immigration of asylum seekers may only be captured through
their registration in the Waiting Register as they are not considered as part
of the legal population.
The immigration form for notifying international immigration is the same
as for internal migration. According the administrative rules the police will
control the establishment of the new place of residence within eight days. If
somebody is already registered at the same address, this person must be
contacted for acceptance or clarification. If this former resident is still living
at this place and accepts the newcomer, the composition of the household is
updated. If this former resident does not live any longer in this registered
address, an ex-officio deregistration should take place after six months of
absence. The municipality must, within twenty days of the declaration of
arrival, notify the registration of the immigrant or the refusal. The date of
immigration is this date of registration in the RN and the immigrant will be
requested to go to the municipality to get all residence permit documents.
An individual (Belgian citizen or foreigner) who intends to live abroad
for more than three months has to self-declare this emigration. Thereafter
he/she is considered as an emigrant and is no longer included in the legal
population. However a person may keep his/her place of residence in
Belgium if he or she has a stronger connection to Belgium than to his or her
new country of residence (for example: long travels for reasons linked with
studies, business or health; Belgian soldiers stationed abroad; diplomats and
so on). In practice, the declaration of emigration is often omitted. Firstly, the
emigrant does not benefit directly from this formality. Furthermore certain
persons may risk or fear losing some advantages and rights (such as those
linked to pensions or health insurance). The departures of foreigners with
temporary residence permits are particularly under-reported. Foreigners are
automatically deregistered eight days after the end of validity of their stay
permit. In order to be registered abroad in the ‘consular population register’,
Belgian citizens must be deregistered from their municipality of origin in
Belgium.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The main database for registration of residence permits and aliens is the
database of the Immigration Service. This database includes all
administrative activities related to the presence of aliens in Belgium:
applications and decisions concerning visas, asylum procedure, residence
permits, settlement, acquisitions of the Belgian citizenship, foreign
students... It includes information on work permits, apprehended, removed
and refused aliens... but these data collections are still deficient. This
383
T H E S I M
database is linked to the RN as information of both systems is exchanged
and checked daily. As a consequence, it enables the identification of all
holders of a valid residence permit. Some irregular/illegal aliens are only
registered within the database of the Immigration Service (following an
apprehension…) as well as short-term migrants (less than three months)
who require a visa to enter the country but are not registered in the RN. Both
groups can easily be identified and no discrepancy should exist between the
RN and the database of the Immigration Service.
To stay more than three months in Belgium, a foreigner has to get a visa
from a diplomatic mission abroad. Some exceptions exist, allowing
submitting the request for an authorisation to stay to the municipality of
residence in Belgium. In all cases these foreigners have to declare their
arrival to his municipality of residence in order to be registered in the RN
and to receive all documents proving the authorisation to stay in the
country.
The law stipulates the following types of residence permits for those
staying three months or more in Belgium:
ƒ Document de séjour: This residence permit concerns foreigners that
receive a provisory authorisation to stay in the country and therefore
are issued an attestation d’immatriculation (attestation of registration).
ƒ Titre de séjour: This residence permit concerns foreigners that receive
a fixed-term authorisation to stay in the country and therefore are
issued a Certificat d’Inscription au Registre des Etrangers (C.I.R.E Certificate of Registration in the Aliens Register1).
ƒ Titre d’établissement: This residence permit concerns foreigners that
receive a permanent settlement permit and therefore are issued a
carte d’identité d’étranger (ID card for foreigner) or a carte de séjour
de ressortissant de la C.E.E. (Residence card for EU citizen) in case of
EU citizens.
The attestation of registration is a document attesting a provisional
authorisation to stay during the period of examination of certain requests
(family reunification, former Belgian citizens, settlement or asylum). It is
usually valid for one year but may be limited to a shorter period.
The C.I.R.E. is the document issued to aliens who are admitted or
authorised to stay three months or more in the country. It is usually valid for
one year. The C.I.R.E. may be extended yearly and renewed after three years
of extension.
1 The Aliens Register is a subset of the RN including all foreigners living in the country with a
C.I.R.E. (termporary residence permit).
384
Country Report: Belgium
The ID card for foreigner and the residence card for EU citizens are
issued to aliens who are authorised to settle. Even if the authorisation of
settlement is indefinite, the document is only valid for five years. On a
general basis after staying five years with a C.I.R.E a foreigner may be
granted a settlement permit.
EU immigrants intending to stay in Belgium for more than one year
receive an attestation of registration that is valid for the first five months.
After five months, if their application for settlement is accepted, they receive
a residence card for EEC citizens. EU immigrants intending to stay in
Belgium for more than three months, but less than one year, receive only an
attestation of registration that is valid for the period of their stay.
An alien leaving definitively Belgium must give back all documents
related to the authorisation to stay in the country.
A.4. Registration of asylum
The main database on asylum is the Waiting Register, which is a subset
of the RN operated by the different authorities in charge of the asylum
procedure: Office des Etrangers (Immigration Service), Commissariat Général
aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides (Commissioner General for Refugees and
Stateless Persons), Commission Permanente de Recours des Réfugiés (Permanent
Appeal Commission for Refugees) and Conseil d’Etat (Council of State). All
asylum applicants are included in the Waiting Register with information on
all related decisions. After being granting asylum all refugees are registered
on the RN and may be identified as refugee in this system through a specific
codification of their citizenship.
According to the Aliens Act, asylum can be requested at the border, in
which case the applicant will be detained in a closed centre, as long as the
application is declared as being admissible. Asylum can also be requested on
the territory (within eight working days), in which case the applicant will be
allocated to an open centre or another form of residence with social support.
The asylum procedure consists of two consecutive phases:
ƒ Preliminary procedure - investigation on the admissibility of the
request, by the Immigration Service;
ƒ Normal procedure - investigation on the merit of the request, by the
Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.
A request for asylum may be refused in the preliminary procedure in
case another country is considered to be responsible for the examination of
the application (based on the Dublin Convention). Furthermore, the
application may be rejected when it is judged as manifestly unfounded
(including safe country of origin and safe third country).
385
T H E S I M
In the normal procedure the following outcomes are possible:
ƒ the applicant is recognised as a refugee on the basis of the Geneva
Convention;
ƒ the applicant is granted a residence permit on humanitarian
grounds;
ƒ the application is rejected and the applicant is ordered to leave the
country.
In both cases of a positive decision, the applicant will receive a C.I.R.E.
with a validity of one year and renewable. After five years a permanent
settlement permit will granted.
Against a decision of inadmissibility, an appeal can be lodged at the
Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, within one to
three working days. A further appeal is possible at the Council of State.
Against a decision of non-recognition as a refugee, an appeal can be lodged
at the Permanent Appeal Commission for Refugees, within fifteen working
days. A further appeal (to quash the decision of the Permanent Appeal
Commission for Refugees) is possible at the Council of State within thirty
days.
Apart from the asylum procedure, temporary protection for a specified
period of time may be granted to a group of aliens in case of a mass influx of
displaced persons.
A reform of the system is expected to come into force soon in order to
create subsidiary procedure following the EU directive and to limit the
implication of the Council of State (this institution is overburdened by
appeals).
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
All types of acquisitions of citizenship are recorded by Immigration
Service in the RN. The Immigration Service could produce statistics on
applications, successful and unsuccessful procedures, but, unfortunately, it
does not. The RN allows only for the production of statistics on successful
procedures.
There are two main types of procedures to obtain Belgian citizenship:
acquisition or attribution of citizenship. The difference relies on the fact that
acquisition requires the expression of the will of the person whereas
attribution does not (for example, a child may obtain Belgian citizenship by
attribution, without expressing their will).
Four types of attribution of the Belgian citizenship exist:
ƒ because of the citizenship of the father or mother;
ƒ because of an adoption;
386
Country Report: Belgium
ƒ because of birth in Belgium;
- for children who may become stateless;
- for children whose at least one parent was born in Belgium;
- for children up to the age of twelve, if their parents have been
living in Belgium for ten years;
ƒ by collective effect of an acquisition for children up to the age of
eighteen, if one parent obtains the Belgian citizenship.
Five types of acquisition of citizenship exist:
ƒ by declaration (if a foreigner of age was born and has always been
living in Belgium; if one parent of a foreign of age acquired the
Belgian citizenship; after seven years of residence, if the foreign has
an unlimited residence permit);
ƒ by option (if a foreigner of age was born in Belgium and has been
living in Belgium between fourteen and eighteen, or for nine years,
(not having been always living in Belgium if a foreigner of age has
been living in Belgium for one year up to the age of six and has been
living in Belgium between fourteen and eighteen, or for nine
years...);
ƒ by the foreign spouse of a Belgian citizen (if the couple has been
living together for three years, six months after the marriage;
ƒ by possession d’état de Belge (if a foreigner has been considered as a
Belgian citizen for ten years because of an administrative error);
ƒ by naturalisation (after three years of legal residence in the general
case; after two years of legal residence for refugees).
Dual citizenship is allowed for foreigners acquiring Belgian citizenship.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
Statistics Belgium (more precisely named SPF Économie - Direction
générale Statistique et Information économique) is responsible for producing
statistics on the resident population. It receives once a year an electronic file
with data on the legal population of Belgium extracted from the RN.
Published data are extracted as for 1st January but the file is compiled only at
the end of February for events that were registered with some delay in
January and February.
The statistical definition of the resident population is related to the
general rules for the registration of residents and linked to the determination
387
T H E S I M
of the municipality of residence in the RN. Accordingly all individuals
whose municipality of residence is registered in the RN are considered
among the usual population of Belgium. Therefore the population statistics
reflects the de jure permanent population. It includes Belgian citizens
residing temporarily abroad and still registered in the RN but excludes
asylum seekers who are registered in the Waiting Register.
An asylum seeker is counted in the legal resident population only when
he/she is recognised as a refugee and when his/her file is transferred from
the Waiting Register to the main part of the RN.
Foreigners attached to foreign embassies, trade missions and consulates,
as well as their family members and personal staff may be registered in the
RN on personal request and are therefore counted among the resident
population. On the other hand, the Belgian staff of Belgian embassies and
trade missions abroad and persons serving abroad are still counted among
the legal resident population (these Belgian citizens keep their
administrative place of residence in Belgium during the mission).
Data are published annually and they refer to 1st January. All variables
requested by the EU Regulation are available. However the rules of
registration in the RN are applied without imposing an additional time
criterion and therefore some short-term immigrants staying in the country
less than one year are included. All asylum seekers are excluded, even if
their stay exceeds one year.
The last classic population census was carried out on 1st March 1991. On
st
1 October 2001, a so-called ‘General Socio-Economic Survey’ was held.
Statistics Belgium was responsible for organising both.
The 2001 operation can neither be considered as a classic census nor as a
fully register-based census. During the 2001 survey, a complete
questionnaire was sent by mail to all persons registered in the RN, but no
field enumeration was organised to update the RN. The concept of mixed
operation could be used to qualify the 2001 operation and the results are no
longer used to determine the legal population of Belgium. There are plans to
base the future census on administrative registers but new registers still
have to be developed for this purpose.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Statistics Belgium is responsible for producing statistics on international
migration flows. The source for international migration statistics is the RN.
Statistics Belgium receives an electronic file each week, containing all
demographic events including registered international immigrations and
emigrations. Statistics Belgium is only allowed to publish data related to the
388
Country Report: Belgium
date of events and the following migrant characteristics: citizenship,
municipality of residence in Belgium, sex, date of birth, matrimonial status
and household composition. For privacy or sensitivity reasons the law does
not allow Statistics Belgium to produce tables on immigrants by country of
origin. The country of destination of emigrants is available but most
emigrants do not declare their emigration and are therefore ex officio
deregistered and the country of destination is unknown. Asylum seekers are
taken into account neither in immigration nor in emigration flows.
International migration data refer to the legal resident population of the
country. An international migration event is defined as a change of the
municipality of residence registered by the RN from or to abroad. Apart
from asylum seekers, all citizens and non-citizens are considered on the
same basis. No additional time criterion is introduced for the compilation of
migration statistics, so the requirements of the EU Regulation are not yet
met. All variables requested by the EU Regulation are available apart from
the ‘country of previous/next residence’ as explained above.
Figures on total immigration presented in various publications and
databases are consistent. There are some discrepancies between data on total
emigration. These discrepancies have been identified to be due to the
different definitions of emigrations (including or not the ex officio
deregistrations related to non self-declared emigrations).
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The Immigration Service is responsible for producing statistics on
residence permits. The main source is the database of the Immigration
Service.
There is no special statistical definition or method of selection. Data on
residence permits are produced on an irregular basis for internal use of the
Ministry. Limited annual data on issued residence permits have been
provided to international users annually starting from 2001. The
Immigration Service can provide on request all data on valid permits, issued
permits or withdrawals of permits requested by the EU Regulation but these
data are not currently published.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
Several bodies produce asylum statistics: the Immigration Service, the
Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and the
Permanent Appeal Commission for Refugees.
389
T H E S I M
Data are usually published annually and monthly data are published or
available on request. Most of indicators required by the EU Regulation are
available (published or available on request). The only exception concerns
the withdrawals of other grants to stay. There is still no formal subsidiary
protection, even if some procedures allow for the grant of a stay permit on
humanitarian grounds (a formal subsidiary protection will be created in the
near future).
The numbers of applicants as they appear in the different international
databases are generally consistent.
Asylum seekers who are either granted asylum or are allowed to stay in
Belgium for another reason receive a temporary residence permit for at least
one year (C.I.R.E.). They are not included in immigration statistics but in a
special category called ‘changes of register’ (e.g. from the Wainting Register
to the main part of the RN). Although this category is used to update the
population stocks, it is not taken into account in the compilation of
immigration statistics. Asylum seekers who leave the country after a
negative asylum decision or before a decision has been taken are included in
neither in immigration nor in emigration statistics.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
Statistics Belgium publishes annual statistics on acquisition of
citizenship. It receives information about all changes of citizenship from the
RN. All persons receiving Belgian citizenship are included, whatever the
motive and the procedure of acquisition, unless they do not reside in
Belgium at the date of naturalisation.
All variables requested by the EU Regulation are available but the total
numbers of acquisitions in the different international databases are
inconsistent.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Alain Schmitz, responsible of the Belgian
EMN-NCP, who coordinated the preparation of several THESIM meetings
held in Brussels in 2004 and 2005, as well as the collection of comments and
corrections to this country report.
390
Country Report
Czech Republic
Dorota Kupiszewska and Beata Nowok
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
In the Czech Republic the population is recorded in the Central
Population Register (Informační systém evidence obyvatel, ISEO), under the
responsibility of the Administrative Activities Department of the Ministry of
the Interior.
The territory of the Czech Republic is divided into 6249 municipalities
(obec), and 205 municipalities (and 22 Prague’s city districts) with extended
competence (obec s rozšířenou působností). The municipalities keep their own
population registers in electronic or paper form but these include only Czech
citizens. All information from municipalities is sent in paper form to the
second level - municipalities with extended competence. The municipalities
with extended competence have on-line access to the ISEO and enter the
data. Usually copies of the ISEO data (a set of changes concerning a concrete
municipality) are sent back off-line (on paper or a CD) from the second level
to the municipalities. Data on foreigners are transferred electronically (using
the internal net of the Ministry of the Interior) to the ISEO from the Aliens
Information System every month. Each person registered in the ISEO is
attributed a Birth Certificate Number. It is forbidden by law to store in the
ISEO any other information than that specifically listed in the Act on the
Population Register and Birth Certificate Numbers. In particular ethnic
nationality cannot be stored. As at 2005, in the case of international
migration there is no information about the country of previous/next
residence in the ISEO, although this is expected to be introduced in 2006
after approval of law amendments put forward by the Czech Statistical
Office (CSO).
The following population categories are included in the ISEO:
ƒ Czech citizens, even those living abroad, unless they have asked to
terminate their permanent residence in the Czech Republic;
T H E S I M
ƒ foreigners (EU and non-EU citizens) with a permanent residence
permit;
ƒ non-EU citizens with a long-term residence visa for over 90 days;
ƒ non-EU citizens with a long-term residence permit;
ƒ EU citizens with a temporary residence permit;
ƒ refugee status holders.
Foreigners with a visa for up to 90 days, asylum-seekers and foreign
diplomats are not recorded in the register.
Currently, a person may have only one place of residence in the Czech
Republic. In the case of Czech citizens it is called the permanent place of
residence. Official registration of a temporary place of residence alongside a
permanent place of residence was stopped in the first half of the nineties.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
All Czech citizens who want to leave the Czech Republic to live abroad
and therefore want to give up their permanent residence in the country have
to report their departure at the local municipality. In fact, only a few citizens
decide to give up their permanent residence in the Czech Republic. When
terminating their permanent residence they have to fill in the administrative
form ‘Notification of deregistration’ and hand in their Czech citizen’s ID
card. If Czech citizens go abroad for a temporary stay they do not have to
report their departure. However, such a possibility is provided for in the law
and some real advantages of reporting exist, concerning payments
connected with health and social insurance. When persons do not report
their departure they have to prove their absence due to a stay abroad to an
insurance company, in order to avoid settling back insurance premiums plus
a fine for the time spent abroad.
Czech citizens arriving from abroad in order to settle in the Czech
Republic have to register their permanent residence in the municipal office.
They fill in the registration form for permanent residence (Notification of
registration). Czech citizens coming for a temporary stay in the Czech
Republic have to register their stay and fill in the registration form
(Notification of registration) only if they do not have a permanent residence
in the country.
As foreigners are not included in the local population registers, their
immigrations and emigrations are not concerned by these rules. All
administrative procedures for registration and deregistration in the ISEO are
carried out through the Aliens Information System, as presented hereafter.
392
Country Report: Czech Republic
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Directorate of Alien and Border Police (sometimes called
‘Immigration Police’ or ‘Alien Police’) within the Ministry of the Interior is
responsible for the Aliens Information System (Cizinecký informační systém,
CIS). The CIS is a central database that contains information regarding,
among others, visas, residence permits, asylum requests and changes of
address of foreigners.
The CIS covers non-EU nationals residing in the Czech Republic, based
on a residence visa or a residence permit (refugees are included) and EU
nationals with an appropriate residence permit. Asylum seekers are
excluded.
The Aliens Law provides the following types of residence visas and
permits:
ƒ temporary;
ƒ short-term residence visa for up to 90 days;
ƒ long-term residence visa for over 90 days - the period for which the
visa is valid is fixed according to the period of time needed for
fulfilling the purpose of residence and shall not exceed one year; stay
in the country based on residence visas for over 90 days cannot
exceed one year;
ƒ long-term residence permit – valid up to one year and granted to
foreigners after one year stay in the Czech Republic based on longterm residence visas, renewable repeatedly;
ƒ temporary residence permit – issued to EU citizens if they intend to
stay in the Czech Republic for more than three months. It is granted
for up to five years but the validity of the permit may be repeatedly
extended;
ƒ permanent.
Following ten years of continuous stay on a long-term residence permit,
any foreigner may apply for a permanent residence permit. EU nationals
may apply for one after three years of uninterrupted stay. If a foreigner
intends to live with a foreigner who has already been granted a permanent
residence permit (family reunification purpose), he/she could obtain a
residence permit after at least eight years in the Czech Republic. Permanent
residence permits not conditional on preceding continuous stay are issued
mainly on humanitarian ground or for family purposes (to close relatives of
Czech citizens or refugees).
Non-EU citizens are registered for the first time when they submit an
application for a visa or a residence permit. Foreigners granted a short-term
or long-term residence visa are required to report the beginning, the place
393
T H E S I M
and the expected duration of stay to the district office of the Alien Police
(okres level1) within three days upon entering the Czech Republic. EU
citizens authorised to reside in the Czech Republic without a visa (up to 90
days) are obliged to register within 30 days upon arriving, provided that
they intend to stay more than 30 days. If EU-citizens intend to stay more
than three months they have to apply for a temporary residence permit. The
information about foreigners with long-term visas or with permits is sent to
the ISEO.
Foreigners with a temporary residence visa or permit do not have to
report when leaving the country. At the end of the validity of the permit
they are considered to have left the country and this information is
transferred to the ISEO. Foreigners with a permanent residence permit
should report to the district office of the Alien Police if they want to leave
the Czech Republic to live permanently abroad.
A.4. Registration of asylum
Registration of asylum data takes place in the Database on asylumseekers and refugees (Databáze žadatelů o azyl a azylantů), under the
responsibility of the Department of Asylum and Migration Policies (OAMP)
of the Ministry of the Interior. This database contains information on the
asylum seekers, the refugees and also on the history of their asylum
procedures.
The course of the asylum procedure is regulated by the Asylum Act. The
start of the procedure is conditional on the foreigner’s statement made on
the territory of the Czech Republic, apparently showing the foreigner’s
intention to request asylum. The statement can be made at a border crossing,
reception centre, the Department of Alien and Border Police when a person
arrives voluntarily, a detention centre for foreigners, health establishment
during hospitalisation, or prison. The foreigner’s duty is to make an
appearance in the reception centre within 24 hours of making a statement to
submit the application for asylum. The only exception is a situation when
he/she cannot arrive due to objective reasons (prison, hospitalisation).
Within 90 days following the commencement of the procedure, the
Department of Asylum and Migration Policies makes its first instance
decision on asylum application. An extension of that term can be made by
the Ministry of the Interior in the case of impossibility of decision due to the
character of the particular case. In the case of an evidently illegitimate
1
There are 77 district (okres) offices of the Alien Police in the Czech Republic.
394
Country Report: Czech Republic
application an accelerated procedure is used. In such a case it is necessary to
decide within 30 days following the commencement of the asylum
procedure.
The normal procedures may result in the following outcomes:
ƒ A positive decision: this applies to applicants who are granted
Convention status. Asylum status could also be granted due to
family reunification or to humanitarian reason. Refugees have the
right of permanent residence in the Czech Republic, almost the same
status as Czech citizens with two exceptions (the right to vote and
the obligation of military service);
ƒ A negative decision with ‘obstacles to travel out’: (e.g. because of the
situation in the country of origin) - the asylum seeker has the right to
reside in the Czech Republic on a temporary basis till the situation in
the particular country is judged satisfactory;
ƒ A negative decision without obstacles to leave: the applicant is
obliged to leave the country. A departure decree is given to him/her
(by Alien and Border Police) with a term to leave the territory of the
Czech Republic marked on it. Only voluntary returns of
unsuccessful asylum seekers are applied (no forced returns).
Because the disappearance rate of asylum seekers is very high in the
Czech Republic, many procedures are terminated without any assessment of
the claim (asylum procedure is suspended).
Apart from the asylum procedure there is a possibility to grant
temporary protection for a specified period of time to a group of aliens in
case of a mass influx of displaced persons, based on a decision of the EU
Council.
The applicants can lodge an appeal with the relevant Regional Court
against the first instance decision of the Ministry of the Interior decision. An
appeal lodged has a suspensive effect. This step ensures that the asylum
seeker can be provided with an independent review of the administrative
decision. The court reviews the decision for legality – it does not decide on
the asylum matter. Hence, it can either confirm the decision of the
administrative body or abolish it and refer the case to a new procedure. A
cessation complaint is an extraordinary remedial instrument against the
regional court’s decision on the asylum process. A decision on this matter
rests within the competence of the Supreme Administrative Court in the city
of Brno.
Significant changes to the Asylum Act were accepted during 2002. The
amendment, which came into force on 1st February 2002 was aimed at
preventing abuse of the asylum procedure. Asylum seekers are now only
allowed to work when in possession of a work permit, which they can apply
395
T H E S I M
for after one year in the asylum procedure. Furthermore, in principle, repeat
claims can only be made after two years following the end of a previous
asylum determination procedure. On 1st January 2003, the legislation on
appeal procedures was amended again and unsuccessful asylum seekers are
free to bring an action with a regional court of justice against the decision of
the Ministry of the Interior. In turn, it is possible to make a cessation
complaint to the High Court against the judgement of the regional court.
The Asylum Act was amended again during 2003 and 2004, but the
amendments were only marginal. On 4th February 2005 the so-called Euroamendment to the Act on Asylum came into force (Act No. 57/2005 Coll.),
which transposed the relevant acquis communitaire.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
Data on acquisition of Czech citizenship are recorded in the Register of
acquisitions of citizenship (Evidence nabytí státního občanství). The authority
responsible for the database is the General Administration Department of
the Ministry of the Interior.
Until 1968, only Czechoslovak citizenship existed. Following the
establishment of the Czechoslovak Federation, in 1969, all Czechoslovak
citizens also had a republic citizenship – ‘Czech citizenship’ or ‘Slovak
citizenship’. For persons born before 1st January 1954 this was determined
according to their birthplace. For those born after this date, republic
citizenship was determined by the republic citizenship of their parents. A
new Act on acquisition and loss of citizenship was adopted in 1992 due to
the division of the former Czechoslovak Socialist Federal Republic (CSFR).
Natural persons who were nationals of the Czech Republic as of 31st
December 1992, and at the same time nationals of the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic, became nationals of the Czech Republic as of 1st January
1993.
According to the current legal regulation Czech citizenship may be
acquired by:
ƒ Birth:
- based on ius sanguinis - if at least one parent is a Czech citizen;
- based on ius soli - if the parents are stateless and at least one of
them has a permanent residence in the Czech Republic;
ƒ Adoption - if at least one adoptive parent is a Czech citizen:
- determination of paternity – if child is born out of wedlock and
mother is a foreigner or stateless person and father is a Czech
citizen;
- being a foundling in the area of the Czech Republic;
396
Country Report: Czech Republic
ƒ Declaration - in case of former Czechoslovak nationals and some of
their descendents:
ƒ Naturalisation - under some conditions including for example a
permanent and continuous residence in the country for at least five
years (required length of permanent residence could be shortened in
some cases, for example for foreigners who married Czech citizen)
and a certificate of knowledge of the Czech language.
The current legal regulation is based on the principle of prevention of
dual or multiple citizenship, however in a whole range of cases it enables a
person to have double or multiple citizenship, for example in the case where
a Czech citizen acquires another citizenship automatically. This may happen
without a request from the person (for instance by birth or marriage) as well
as in many other cases connected with the dissolution of the former CSFR
(e.g.: for former CSFR nationals who opted for Slovakian citizenship during
1993; or for former CSFR nationals who acquired the Slovakian citizenship
after 2nd September 1999).
Naturalisation is under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior.
Applications for naturalisation should be lodged with the regional
administration office (krajský úřad) (in Prague at the Office of the City
District, in Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň at the Office of the City Council)
according to the applicant’s place of permanent residence. The decision is
made by the Ministry of the Interior within 90 days of the day when the
application for naturalisation has been delivered to the Ministry. The
decision is sent back to the regional office where the application was
submitted. When a positive decision on granting citizenship is made, the
regional office where the application was submitted transmits the
information to the ISEO, Aliens Register and back to the Ministry of the
Interior. Acquisition of citizenship by declaration is within the competence
of the regional administration office (in Prague at the Office of the City
District, in Brno, Ostrava and Plzeň at the Office of the City Council) and is
notified to other authorities including the police and the Ministry of the
Interior.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The authority in charge of producing statistical data on population stocks
is the Czech Statistical Office (Český statistický úřad, CSU). The CSU is also
397
T H E S I M
responsible for the conduct of the censuses. The last census was carried out
on 1st March 2001. A traditional method of using census questionnaires was
applied. Census, vital statistics and migration data are used to produce
subsequent annual estimates for the stock of Czech citizens only. The
population stock of foreigners is based on the Aliens Information System
(annual since 2001). Individual records on foreigners are transferred to CSU
from the Directorate of the Alien and Border Police. Annual estimates for
nationals and the state of the register of foreigners are published annually on
the reference date of 31st December.
The de facto population at the time of the Census was considered
(including temporary migrants residing in the Czech Republic over 90 days).
Foreigners residing in the Czech Republic for up to 90 days (with a shortterm visa or without a visa if a bilateral agreement on non-visa regime for
tourists exists between the Czech Republic and the country of origin) were
excluded from the census population figure. The CSU estimated on the basis
of comparison with the register of foreigners that 32 % of foreigners were
not covered by the Census.
For intercensal years stock figures on nationals are updated on the basis
of statistics obtained from administrative records: births, deaths,
immigrations and emigrations. Stock figures on nationals refer to
permanently resident Czech citizens only. Figures on the stock of foreigners,
which are produced by the CSU using data from the Aliens Information
System, refer to foreigners with valid residence permits whose length of stay
has exceeded one year. Annual figures on total resident population of the
Czech Republic are produced as a sum of nationals and foreigners.
Data on population by citizenship are available but the figures on stocks
of nationals for intercensal years might be overestimated due to the
underestimation of figures on emigration. Data on population by country of
birth are not available yet for intercensal periods. They will be available
when the CSU gains access to data on country of birth from the ISEO. The
ISEO will be the only source for stock data and population adjustments will
in future be no longer conducted.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
The authority responsible for producing statistics on international
migration is the CSU. The data are compiled on a quarterly basis.
Immigration and emigration of Czech citizens refers only to self-declared
changes of permanent residence. Since 2005 they do not have to fill in the
statistical form Hlášení o stěhování, Obyv 5-12 (Notification of migration) that
398
Country Report: Czech Republic
was previously used by the CSU to produce statistics on international
migration of nationals.
In practice the data currently used by the CSU come from two sources:
the ISEO and the Aliens Information System. The automatically generated
export files with all changes of place of residence registered in the ISEO,
provided monthly by the Ministry of the Interior (Department for
Informatisation of the Civil Service), are used to produce statistics on the
migration of Czech citizens2. The following characteristics are exported:
Birth Certificate Number, date of birth, sex, marital status, date of migration
(date of registration/deregistration of permanent residence), previous and
new address (municipality-code, district-code and for migration to or from
Prague, full address in Prague. As at 2005, in the case of international
migration, there is no information about the country of previous/next
residence in the ISEO). Data on the international migration of foreigners are
produced from the automatically generated export batch from the Aliens
Information System provided monthly by the Directorate of the Alien and
Border Police. The ISEO is not used for aliens as not all foreigners are
correctly input to the ISEO yet. The foreign migration file contains: ID in
Aliens Information System, Birth Certificate Number, date of birth, sex,
marital status, category of stay, previous and new address (full address),
date of beginning/ending of stay in the Czech Republic, country of previous
residence, country of birth, purpose of stay and code for giving the record to
information storage (for emigrants).
Figures on immigration of foreigners are currently produced by the CSU
based on the de jure length of stay principle. Data refer to foreigners with
residence permits (long-term, temporary and permanent). The actual
duration of stay for foreigners with long-term residence permits is by
definition longer than one year. In the case of EU citizens with temporary
residence permits, their actual duration of stay could be shorter than one
year (more than three months). The date of registration is taken as the date
of immigration. Persons granted permanent residence permits not
conditional on preceding continuous stay are also counted as immigrants at
the date of registration of their residence. Additionally, duration of stay is
not taken into account in the case of refugee and other protection status.
They are automatically included and the date of granting the status is taken
as the date of immigration. Foreigners are treated as emigrants at the date of
2 Until the reference year 2004 statistics on the international migration of Czech citizens were
produced based on statistical forms Hlásenie o sťahovanie, Obyv 5-12 provided to the Czech
Statistical Office by the municipal registration offices. They were filled in when changing the
permanent place of residence.
399
T H E S I M
cancellation of residence in the country (date of deregistration), at the expiry
date of the temporary residence permit or at the expiry date of card
corresponding to the permanent residence permit, provided it has not been
renewed.
The Alien and Border Police produce different statistics from those of the
CSU, even if they use the same database. Firstly, their data seem to exclude
refugees and include them as a special category of the foreign population.
Secondly, foreigners whose actual duration of stay is less than one year are
not excluded.
In 2001, substantial changes in the level of registered migration flows
were observed. This was due to the change of migrant definition for
foreigners which became closer to that of the UN recommendations.
Therefore, data before and after 2000 are not compatible. Up to 2000
statistics on foreigners were based only on changes of permanent residence
and since 2001 long-term temporary migration has also been included. The
sudden rise is visible especially for emigration figures in 2001 (this was a
special case of parallel change of definition and implementation of the new
Act on Residence of Foreigners - much stricter than the previous one).
The application of the new concept resulted in a much higher level of
registered flows from/to individual countries of origin and destination.
However, there are still significant discrepancies, in particular in the case of
emigration. This could be attributed to differences in definitions which still
exist, especially for Czech citizens, and the low willingness to report the
intention of permanent emigration abroad. Immigration data for 2002 are
substantially lower only in comparison with emigration figures reported by
Germany and Denmark. Emigration statistics are less reliable than
immigration statistics and in the majority of cases they are incomparably
lower than data reported by partner countries (this refers in particular to
Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands).
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The Alien and Border Police within the Ministry of the Interior are
responsible for producing statistical data on residence permits. The data are
derived from the Aliens Information System and published on an annual
basis at the reference date of 31st December.
Figures for annual total positive decisions on residence permits are
available and published in the DG JLS 2001 Annual Report but they are not
disaggregated by reason.
400
Country Report: Czech Republic
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The authority responsible for producing statistical data on asylum is the
Department of Asylum and Migration Policies of the Ministry of the Interior
(OAMP). The data are produced on a monthly basis.
With regard to decisions there are various discrepancies between
different sources (Department of Asylum and Migration Policies, CSU and
Eurostat). These discrepancies may be caused by different interpretations of
some concepts (discontinued, annulment, obstacle to leave, etc.).
Furthermore, the distinction between total and first instance decisions is not
always clear. Finally, ‘crude’ (total number of grants) and ‘net’ decisions (i.e.
grants minus withdrawals of grants) may be mixed up. The CSU receives all
the data on asylum procedures from the responsible authority, therefore the
statistics that they publish should not differ from those published by the
Ministry.
As regards the relationship between asylum statistics and migration
statistics, only recognised refugees are included in immigration statistics
(flows) and population statistics (stocks). If a person leaves the country he or
she will be included in the emigration statistics and excluded from the stock.
Asylum seekers having received a final negative decision are never included
in immigration and emigration statistics.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
The authorities responsible for production of statistical data on
acquisitions of citizenship are the Czech Statistical Office and the General
Administration Department of the Ministry of the Interior. The data are
produced on an annual basis. All acquisitions of citizenships by
naturalisation based on request and declaration are included in the statistics.
The figure in the 2001 DG JLS Annual Report is more less than half that
reported by the CSU. This is the consequence of the exclusion of the former
Czechoslovak citizens acquiring the Czech citizenship by declaration.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Bohdana Holá of the CSU, who coordinated the
preparation of the THESIM meeting, held in Prague on 17th September 2004,
as well as the collection of comments and corrections to this country report.
401
Country Report
Denmark
Anne Herm
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The Danish Civil Registration System (Det Centrale Person Register, CPR)
is a nationwide civil register containing basic personal data about anyone
who has a civil registration number. The Ministry of the Interior and Health,
together with the municipalities, administer the CPR, maintain and update
it. Other authorities, such as parishes, also participate in the maintenance of
the CPR in accordance with rules laid down by the Ministry of the Interior
and Health.
People who have (or have had) their usual residence in Denmark are
recorded in the CPR. Place of usual residence means the dwelling where a
person regularly sleeps when not temporarily absent owing to holiday,
business travel, illness or similar reasons, and where the person has their
property and belongings. The system covers Denmark and Greenland while
the population of the Faroe Islands is not recorded in this database.
Newborn children are systematically registered in the CPR through parish
registers and therefore are attributed a PIN (CPR-number), while records of
all dead persons are systematically deactivated and transferred to the
archive. Immigrations and emigrations are registered through municipal
register offices. A PIN is allocated for immigrants when the person first
notifies immigration to Denmark.
People recorded in the CPR compose the legal or de jure population of
Denmark. The CPR also includes persons paying working or property taxes
in Denmark even if they do not reside in the country. However, these two
categories are clearly marked so that they will not be counted in flows and
stocks as part of the de jure population of Denmark.
T H E S I M
A.2. Registration of international migrations
Anyone relocating his or her place of residence within the country's
boundaries or immigrating from abroad or moving abroad is obliged to
report this change of residence to their municipality.
In general persons who immigrate to Denmark are obliged to report their
immigration if they intend to stay for more than three months in the
country. For persons immigrating from a Nordic country, another EEA
country or Switzerland the time criterion is six months. Citizens of Nordic
countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have the right to enter,
reside and work in Denmark without being granted a visa, a residence
permit or a work permit. For citizens of non-Nordic countries, the
registration of immigration from abroad requires residence permit or
residence certificate. Persons must report their immigration to the
municipality of residence no later than five days after having a place of
residence or fixed abode in Denmark. The recorded date of immigration is
the date of arrival and not the date of declaration. However if the residence
permit has been issued after arrival the immigration date will be the date the
residence permit was issued.
With a few exceptions, anyone moving abroad for more than six months
should report his or her departure to the municipality of last residence prior
to departure. A person who stays abroad for more than six months and
maintains the former dwelling at full availability has the right to remain
there as a resident. If the former dwelling is not maintained at full
availability, the municipality shall evaluate whether or not a move abroad is
involved.
When a person moves from or to another Nordic country, whatever his
or her citizenship, the registration of migration is performed according to
Inter-Nordic Migration Agreement between Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden. Immigration in Denmark will be applied alongside
Denmark's own legal provisions. When reporting immigration from another
Nordic country a person (regardless of citizenship) must submit an ‘InterNordic Migration Certificate’ in order to be registered in the CPR.
Information about immigration to Denmark will be transferred to the
municipality of origin (starting from January 2005 electronically) in the
Nordic country of emigration. For emigration, the minimal duration of stay
in the receiving Nordic country is applied for the registration of emigration
in Denmark. Thus, emigrants to Nordic countries are only recorded as
emigrants in Denmark when the country of immigration notifies the Danish
authorities that the person must be registered as immigrated to this Nordic
country. Emigrations from Denmark to another Nordic country are recorded
404
Country Report: Denmark
according the rule of six months for Norway and one year for Finland,
Sweden and Iceland. When a person intends to emigrate to another Nordic
country the emigration municipality shall issue an ‘Inter-Nordic Migration
Certificate’ which has to be presented at the office of immigration in the
destination Nordic country. The municipality of arrival will transfer
electronically to the CPR the requested information to deregister the person
in Denmark.
Immigration from and emigration to the Faroe Islands is treated on the
same basis as any other Nordic country.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Danish Aliens Register (Udlændingeregistret) serves as a common
working register for all authorities dealing with the processing of residence
permits (The Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs, The
Refugee Appeal Board, The Danish Immigration Service, the Commissioner
of the Police and the State Counties). A unique record number is attributed
to each applicant and all children are granted an independent residence
permit and recorded separately. The Aliens Register includes, in addition to
this specific aliens’ record number, the civil registration number if the
person is registered in the CPR.
All aliens except Nordic citizens are recorded in Aliens Register and must
obtain a residence certificate (citizens of EEA countries) or residence permit
(citizens of non-EEA countries) to stay in Denmark.
EEA citizens can reside in Denmark up to three months without a
residence certificates and six months if the person is seeking employment.
For longer stay all EEA citizens (except Nordic citizens) have to request a
special residence certificate and must follow the rules included in the EU
directive. Applications of EEA citizens are processed by the state county
authorities (statsamt).
All other aliens need a residence permit in order to work or to stay more
than three months in Denmark. The Danish Immigration Service processes
the cases in the first instance with the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and
Integration Affairs acting as second instance. Typically, as a result of a
positive decision an applicant will be granted a residence permit for a
limited time of two years, renewable once for two years and subsequently
for three years. Thereafter an application for a time-unlimited residence
permit may be granted. Work and study permits can only be issued for the
length of the work or study period. However, attention is drawn to the fact
that various rules for extending the residence permit are in place.
405
T H E S I M
Generally, a residence permit must be received prior to a foreigner's
entry into Denmark. An application for a residence and work permit must
therefore be submitted in the applicant's country of origin to representative
office of Denmark. The representative office forwards applications for
processing to the Danish Immigration Service in Denmark.
Residence permit holders who leave the country and want to come back
are allowed to do so within six months for temporary residence permit
holders or within one year for permanent residence permit holders.
A.4. Registration of asylum
The Aliens Register is also the database for recording all data related to
the asylum procedure. As a general principle only the authority responsible
for the processing of the asylum request has the right to update the related
information in the Danish Aliens Register. The Danish Immigration Service
within the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs has the
responsibility for asylum applications in the first instance.
There are two different procedures for processing the asylum
applications, the ‘normal procedure’ and the manifestly unfounded
procedure. The manifestly unfounded procedure is applied in cases that are
obviously without prospect. The ‘normal procedure’ is generally applied in
all other cases.
A residence permit may obtain on the following grounds:
ƒ Convention status: in order to obtain asylum in Denmark, an
applicant must fulfil the conditions listed in the United Nations
Refugee Convention.
ƒ Protection status: Denmark grants protection in cases where, as a
state, it is obliged to do so in order to comply with the international
conventions it has ratified (for example, residence permits are
granted to asylum seekers who risk the death penalty, torture,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment if they return to
their country of origin).
ƒ Typically, as a result of a positive decision, an asylum seeker will be
granted a residence permit for a limited time of two years that may
be renewed once for two years and subsequently for three years.
Thereafter an application for a time-unlimited residence permit may
be submitted and granted.
ƒ If asylum is not granted, a residence permit can subsequently be
obtained on other grounds, i.e. humanitarian grounds or exceptional
reasons (e.g. asylum seekers that cannot be returned). These persons
will figure both as a negative decision on asylum and with a certain
406
Country Report: Denmark
time lag due to the processing of the case as a positive decision with
another status.
ƒ Moreover, a refugee residing outside Denmark can be resettled in
Denmark after agreement with the UNHCR or a similar international
organisation. Since 1989, Denmark’s quota has been set at 500
placements per year (quota refugees).
ƒ If the application is deemed manifestly unfounded, the case is
referred to the Danish Refugee Council. If the Danish Refugee
Council agrees with this negative decision, the asylum-seeker is
refused asylum without appeal. If the Danish Refugee Council
disagrees, the refusal of asylum will be brought before the Refugee
Appeal Board. In the ‘normal procedure’, if a negative decision is
made, the asylum case is automatically transferred to the Refugee
Appeal Board for processing. The decisions of the Refugee Appeal
Board are final. Asylum-seekers receiving a final negative decision
must leave the country immediately.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
In Denmark several authorities are in charge of processing applications
for Danish citizenship. Declarations on citizenship may be submitted
through a county governor, the Prefect of Copenhagen, the High
Commissioner of the Faeroe Islands or the High Commissioner of
Greenland. Applicants for citizenship by naturalisation have to submit their
application to the local police or to the Chief of Police in Copenhagen. The
Naturalisation Division of the Ministry of Justice deals with naturalisation
applications, but all decisions on applications for citizenship by declaration
and naturalisation are made by Parliament.
Information about citizenship is held in the CPR. If a person holds more
than one citizenship, and if one of these is Danish, the person is registered as
Danish. If none of these is Danish, the citizenship for which the person
shows identification is registered.
A Danish citizen is a person who by birth, marriage of parents, adoption,
declaration or parliamentary act (i.e. naturalisation), has received the Danish
citizenship. The right to acquire Danish citizenship by declaration applies
only to persons aged between 18 and 23 who have resided in Denmark for at
least ten years (and among these at least five years within the last six years).
Conditions for naturalisation generally include a minimum of 18 years of
age, permanent residence in Denmark, at least nine years uninterrupted stay
and other modalities. Several exceptions are also foreseen (e.g. for stateless
407
T H E S I M
persons and refugees and spouses of Danish citizens and for Nordic
citizens). Multiple citizenships are generally not allowed.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
Statistics Denmark is responsible for organising Population and Housing
Censuses and for producing census tables and population estimates between
successive censuses. From 1981 there have no longer been traditional
censuses in Denmark and the last census on 1st January 2001 was also a
completely register-based census. The census is exclusively carried out for
statistical purposes and is fully dependant on the CPR as far as enumeration
is concerned. Data from approximately 30 administrative and statistical
registers (for population, building and dwellings, wages and salaries,
income, education, etc.) were used to produce the census results.
The statistical definition of the population with usual residence is related
to the general rules for the registration of residents in Denmark. The usual
population is defined as persons with permanent addresses in Denmark.
The permanent address concept, which is used in the population statistics, is
the same as that used in the CPR. It is defined as the place where a person
lives on a regular basis, sleep when not abroad because of holidays or
business trips. It may be also the place where the person’s belongings are
kept.
For statistics on population stocks, all individuals (citizens and noncitizens) who are registered in the CPR as resident are considered as the
usual population of Denmark without any selection procedure. Therefore
the population statistics reflect the legal or de jure population of Denmark.
Accordingly, the usual resident population defined in Denmark covers a
category of persons (residing from three or six to twelve months) that,
according to the UN census recommendations and the EU Regulation,
should not be included in usually resident population.
An asylum seeker will only be counted in the population with usual
residence when a residence permit has been granted and the Immigration
Service has registered this person in the CPR as living in a municipality in
Denmark.
Foreign Diplomats who are registered in the Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs’ records as well as their family members and personal staff are not
counted among the resident population. On the other hand, persons
408
Country Report: Denmark
employed by the Danish government abroad are included in the legal
resident population.
Data on the resident population are published annually and refer to the
situation on 1st January each year. Information about events registered
within 30 days after 1st January is included. Since 2002 information on
foreign citizens has also been compiled on a quarterly basis. All variables
requested by the EU Regulation are available (age, sex, citizenship, country
of birth). There is no sign of incompatibility between the figures published
by Statistics Denmark and the data available in the different international
databases.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Statistics Denmark is responsible for producing statistics on international
migration flows. The basis for compiling these statistics is the Population
Register of Statistics Denmark, which is based on information received
weekly from the CPR about immigrations and emigrations. The following
variables are included for international migration: PIN, age, sex, marital
status, citizenship, place of birth, date of migration, municipality of
residence in Denmark and country of origin for immigration or destination
for emigration.
International migration data refer to the legal resident population of the
country and each immigration or emigration will change the state of this
population. An international migration event is defined as a change of the
municipality of residence registered by the CPR from or to abroad through
the self-reporting of the concerned person. Immigration data include Danish
nationals who register return from abroad, Nordic citizens who register a
permanent address in Denmark (for a stay of more than six months) and
non-Nordic citizens who are granted a residence permit for more than three
months. Emigrations for more than six months will be counted in the
emigration statistics (with some exceptions described in A.2).
The statistics on migration are based on events. Thus, a person who
migrates several times in the course of a calendar year will be counted
several times. Migrations from the Faeroe Islands and Greenland are
included in international migration flows. Emigration flow data include any
persons who go abroad and give up their permanent address in Denmark.
Foreign citizens who disappear’ (when there is no information on their
actual situation) are considered in the statistics as having emigrated.
The statistics on migration are published quarterly and, with more
details, annually. All variables requested by the EU Regulation are available
(age, sex, citizenship, country of origin or country of destination, country of
409
T H E S I M
birth). It is not possible, in the registration of migrants, to distinguish
between long-term and short-term migrations by intention of stay, but it is
possible by delaying the statistics for one year, to identify immigrants who
actually stayed one year or more, or emigrants who did not return within
one year. For international comparisons, Statistics Denmark compiles such
statistics on long-term migration according to the UN definition and these
statistics meet the requirements of the EU Regulation. Nevertheless the data
source for emigration statistics creates some quality problems, because there
is no strong incentive or reason for emigrated persons to inform the
municipality.
All figures available in different international databases are compatible.
Migration flows by country of origin and country of destination present
excellent comparability with other Nordic countries as Denmark is involved
in the Inter-Nordic Migration Agreement. However, it is important to
mention that this high level of comparability does not mean ipso facto a
higher level of reliability, as a similar under-registration may exist on a
coherent basis in both the Nordic countries involved.
The registered flows of international migration in Denmark are among
the highest in the EU. Figures on flows from and to individual countries of
origin or destination are lower only when compared with data reported by
Germany in the case of flow from Denmark to Germany. The relatively large
values of registered flows may result to some extent from the shorter time
criterion compared with other countries. The difference in figures for flows
from Denmark to Germany may be attributed to the fact that Germany
registers all international immigration for a stay of eight days or more.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The Danish Immigration Service is responsible for processing, compiling
and publishing statistics on residence permits (including residence
certificates). Statistics on residence permits are based on data included in the
Aliens Register.
Data on residence permits are produced on a regular base from monthly
to annual reporting of data. With the purpose of making available statistics
for all instances and all types of cases, an annual ‘Statistical Overview’ is
published. In this publication, statistics are compiled and aggregated
according to some overall formats applied and explained in the various
notes in the publication.
Statistical data requested by the EU Regulation are not currently
published. However it may be possible to produce statistics on residence
permits issued during the reference period. Long-term visas and
410
Country Report: Denmark
immigration status grants instead of employment or residence permits are
not applicable in Denmark. Statistics on a reference date are not possible or
not applicable, except for the number of long-term residents which may be
produced on the basis of the CPR.
According to the rules for the registration of persons in the CPR,
immigration statistics include all first residence permit holders who have
reported themselves for registration. In residence permit statistics a person
may be counted twice if they have applied for a subsequent residence permit
on a different ground, whilst in migration statistics this person is counted
once. Emigration statistics do not have any direct connection with the
validity of residence permits.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The Danish Immigration Service is also responsible for processing,
compiling and publishing asylum statistics. Statistics on asylum are based
on records of the Danish Aliens Register. Key figures on asylum applications
and decisions are published in the annual ‘Statistical Overview’. Statistics
Denmark publishes some additional asylum statistics received from Danish
Immigration Service.
Most of the data required by the EU Regulation are available and already
published. Data on withdrawals of refugee status, subsidiary protection
status and other grants are not published but are also available.
Asylum seekers who are granted asylum, regardless of instances or
authorities, are included in the immigration flow statistics similarly to other
aliens who are granted a residence permit. The date of registration of an
asylum seeker in the CPR is considered as the date of immigration. Asylum
seekers who leave the country after a negative asylum decision or before a
decision has been taken are included in neither immigration nor in
emigration statistics.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
Statistics Denmark produces statistics on acquisitions of citizenship based
on changes of citizenship received weekly with all other demographic events
from the CPR which in turn receives reports from the permitting authorities.
In the CPR only one country of citizenship is recorded, even if person has
more than one.
All variables requested by the EU Regulation are available.
411
T H E S I M
Ackowledgements
We are grateful to Anita Lange of Statistics Denmark who coordinated the
THESIM meeting held in Copenhagen on 28th January 2005 and collected all
comments and corrections to this country report.
412
Country Report
Germany
Veronika Bilger and Albert Kraler
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
In Germany the resident population is registered in municipal or local
population registers (Melderegister). In total, there are some 5,400 population
registers in Germany as a whole. There is no central population register, nor
is there a central database based on local register data. However, the Länder
of Bremen, Hamburg, Berlin and Rhineland-Palatine, each have a central
population register.
Local population registers cover all people who are registered in the area
within the jurisdiction of the local population register unit. For registration
purposes, a distinction is made between the main place of residence and
secondary places of residence, whereby ‘main place of residence’ is defined
as ordinary place of residence (‘habitual abode’). The federal Framework Act
on Registration 2002 defines the universe of persons to be covered and the
minimum information to be recorded. Each of the Länder may specify
registration requirements and procedures, as a result of which some
variation in the practice of registration and the information collected may
occur. Basically all persons with legal residence in Germany are registered
and immigrants have to register within a week of entry or change of place of
residence, except for tourists in tourist lodgings, foreign diplomats and
members of foreign armed forces1. The following information is regularly
recorded in local population registers: day of moving in, last and current
residence(s), sex, date and place of birth, marital status, nationality/
nationalities, religion, residence in other dwellings (main/second residence),
1 Seasonal workers are registered except in four Länder where seasonal workers can be exempt
from the obligation to register if they reside in the respective Länder for less than two months (in
two Länder) and less than one month (in the other two).
T H E S I M
while the first registration record also records gainful employment (in the
modalities yes/no), and the ID card/Passport Number. Births, marriages
and deaths are recorded in the civil register of the municipality where the
event takes place. This information is then transferred to the municipality,
where the person or the mother of the newborn child has his or her main
residence. Similarly, naturalisation authorities notify local population
registers on any changes of nationality. Exchange of data between local
population registers of all German municipalities is organised if the main
place of residence or secondary places of residence are changed and both
places (place of previous, place of next residence) are to be recorded. As
virtually all 5,400 local population registers are digitalised, each person has a
unique (system) code, which, however, is not shared between different local
population registers and is therefore different when a change of
municipality occurs, except within the few population registers centralised
at the level of the Länder or in case of municipalities sharing the same
operating system. Households are not recorded as such in the population
register, although all persons living in a particular dwelling may be
considered as a proxy for a household (household-dwelling concept). Family
units may not be identified as such except in the case of children below the
age of eighteen and their parents who are linked by a common code. This
has to be deleted when the child reaches the age of eighteen. The occupation
of a dwelling is the basic criterion for registration. A person residing
subsequently in different dwellings during a same year will be considered as
having changed the residence each time, regardless of the period he/she
spent in each dwelling and each change has to be declared within eight days
to the municipality of arrival.
From the perspective of registering individuals, there are strong
incentives to make a deliberate choice of where to register one’s main place
of residence, as specific advantages may accrue from registering in a
particular municipality. Conversely, municipalities, and particular smaller,
rural municipalities have an interest in keeping residents registered with a
main place of residence, as their share in federal taxes and redistribution of
income within the states are based on the stock of residents with a main
residence. As a result, conflicts over persons registering a main place of
residence elsewhere but maintaining a secondary place of residence, occur,
which appear to be mostly solved informally between the respective
municipalities.
414
Country Report: Germany
A.2. Registration of international migrations
All movements of persons entering and leaving the country are subject to
the obligation to register2. Both nationals and non-nationals entering the
country have to register at local population registration offices normally
within a week of entry (conditions are specified in state laws). Upon
registration of a foreigner, the local population register notifies the regional
immigration authorities who will enter the data in the Aliens Register (see
below). No distinction can be made between short term and long term
migrants in the local population registers, since the intended duration of
stay is not asked for at the time of registration and the de facto length of stay
cannot be established.
All persons leaving the country for a prolonged period of time and
giving up their place of residence in Germany are obliged to deregister.
Many persons leaving the country, however, do not deregister. Especially
for emigrants with family remaining in the place, there are strong incentives
not to deregister as specific advantages may accrue from remaining
registered. In the case of nationals, long term absence may be discovered
when official notifications (e.g. election information letters, income tax
related communications etc.) do not reach the destination. If municipalities
discover the continuous absence of a person, they may deregister the
respective person ex-officio. Non-deregistration is a known problem in
regard to foreigners, in particular those that were not gainfully employed, as
their absence is much more unlikely to be discovered. Variation exists
between Länder as to what extent and when asylum seekers are registered.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
Foreigners, both EU citizens and third-country nationals, are registered in
the Aliens Register (Ausländerzentralregister, AZR). As of 1st January 2005, the
AZR is under the responsibility of the Federal Office for Migration and
Refugees, created as an independent agency by the Immigration Act 2004.
2 With regard to tourist registration only tourists in tourist lodgings are explicitly exempt from
the obligation to register. Therefore a considerable number of short term visitors may be
recorded in the migration statistics. In case of a temporary move within Germany, state
registration laws may, according to the Federal Registration Framework Act, exempt persons
from the obligation to register if they have a registered place of residence elsewhere in Germany
and his/her stay does not exceed 6 months. German inhabitants (sic) having their usual place of
residence abroad are not subject to the obligation to register if their stay does not exceed 2
months.
415
T H E S I M
The register is divided between a visa database and a general database.
The visa database records data on all people applying for a visa to Germany,
including type and number of passport as well as relevant information on
the issue of each application. As the competent German consulates abroad
directly update the visa-database, residence permits applied for from abroad
are also included in the database. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs operates
its own visa database, which, however is not linked to the Visa Database of
the AZR.
The general database includes all foreigners who have established their
residence in Germany on a long-term basis (for more than three months),
thus, in principle including EU nationals, as well as most other categories of
foreigners, including asylum seekers, war or civil war refugees. This
information system records various administrative acts including
administrative decisions on residence permit (issue, termination, renewal),
‘reservations’ regarding admission and the issuing of a residents permit,
rejections at the border, apprehensions, information on foreigners against
whom charges were brought on criminal offences (e.g. terrorist acts),
information on foreigners who have been handed over to other countries,
and information on foreigners who have been denied the application for the
recognition of the German citizenship or the status of ethnic German.
Non-EEA citizens require a residence permit for any stay exceeding three
months. Those residing less than three months but gainfully employed also
need a residence permit. The new Immigration Act, which entered into force
on 1st January 2005, considerably reduces the number of different permits as
provided for by the German Aliens Law in force until 31st December 2004. It
replaces the various short term permits with one limited residence permit,
the validity of the permit depending on the purpose of stay (specific
temporary purposes, such as studies or vocational training and specific,
temporary limited (gainful) activities, family unification and to refugees).
The unlimited residence/ permanent permits are replaced by one so-called
settlement permit (issued after five years of possession of a limited residence
permit and after three years in case of family unification or highly qualified
persons working in the scientific and economic sectors, to self-employed
aliens who invest at least one million Euro and create at least ten jobs and to
refugees after their case has be reviewed). In accordance with the EU
legislation, residence permits for EU citizens are abolished. In regard to
asylum seekers the ‘permission to stay’ is still active but the practice of
‘toleration’ (Duldung) will be more restricted and limited. The old type
permits will gradually phased out.
Upon entry, a foreigner has to report herself or himself to one of the 648
competent district Immigration Authorities. This leads to an entry in the
416
Country Report: Germany
general database of the AZR. Each registered person has an AZR number, a
code number only used for the AZR. With the new immigration law, old
entries will not be overwritten in case of change of purpose or renewal
anymore, but will be kept. A wide range of variables are recorded, such as
name, place and date of birth, sex, identity document, citizenship, marital
status, last place of residence (in the country of origin), emigration, reimmigration, legal status of residence including refugee status, as well as
nationality of the spouse are stored. In addition, also administrative actions
such as residence bans, expulsion and deportation are recorded in the
database. This information is provided by a wide range of public authorities,
including municipalities, local immigration authorities, the Federal Office
for the Recognition of Refugees, border control authorities, provincial High
Courts, federal and municipal public prosecution offices, public offices
dealing with Ethnic German and exile affairs, federal and regional offices
responsible for defending the constitution, and appropriate agencies abroad.
Information from subordinate administrative agencies on changes
concerning foreigners is first sent to the Immigration Authorities at district
level (responsible for granting permits and other foreigner related matters)
which keep a separate ‘Foreigners File’. District Immigration Authorities are
obliged to transfer all relevant changes to the AZR and therefore using the
respective AZR numbers.
As foreigners often miss deregistration from the local population register,
which would lead to deregistration in the AZR, the number of recorded
persons seems to be much higher than the actual number of persons present
in German territory. In addition, there are also significant discrepancies
between figures from the AZR and local population registers, suggesting
deficiencies in the communication between the AZR and local population
registers.
A.4. Registration of asylum
Introduced in 2002 the new Database on Asylum seekers, the ‘Migration,
Asylum, Reintegration and Integration System’ (MARiS) is fully operational
since 1st January 2003 and under the responsibility of the Federal Office for
Migration and Refugees (BAMF) as established by the 2004 Immigration Act.
BAMF records all persons applying for asylum in its respective branch
offices. The alien's personal details are entered into the MARiS database on
receipt of the asylum application and each person has a specific PIN. MARiS
not only contains meta-information on the procedure, but all documents
417
T H E S I M
associated to individual asylum cases. All historical information is
maintained3.
The asylum procedure is regulated on the basis of the Asylum Procedure
Act, effective since 1st July 1993. An accelerated procedure is followed when:
ƒ the applicant comes from a safe country of origin or a safe third
country;
ƒ the application is governed by the Dublin Convention, determining
the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged
in one of the Member States of the European Union;
ƒ the application is considered manifestly unfounded.
In the main procedure, the asylum seeker obtains a temporary residence
permit, which gives him/her the right to a provisional stay in order to carry
out his/her asylum procedure in the Federal Republic of Germany. The
hearing of the applicant is done by a so-called caseworker of the Federal
Office in the presence of an interpreter. The applicant is obliged to explain
his reasons for being persecuted, to indicate the related facts and to present
any available documents. A report is drawn up on the statements he/she
made in the hearing and is re-translated to the applicant.
The caseworker decides on the asylum application. In the normal
procedure this decision may be:
ƒ recognition - Upon which the successful asylum applicants is issued
a temporary residence permit for three years (Aufenthalterlaubnis),
which entitles him or her to work. After three years, the case will be
reviewed. If the conditions leading to the recognition still prevail, a
permanent residence status will be drawn. If not, the status will be
withdrawn. However, due to the sensitivity of the issue, no
information is available on the extent of ex officio withdrawals of
refugee status.
ƒ rejection - Asylum seekers may be rejected on grounds of unfounded
or manifestly unfounded claims, but may be granted ‘temporary
suspension of deportation’. Section 60 of the Aliens Act regulates
matters concerning protection from deportation for other reasons
than the risk of political persecution; The temporary suspension of
deportation (Duldung) is the waiver of the enforcement to leave the
country.
In case of naturalisation, however, the entire file of the naturalised person has to be deleted, as
is the case in the AZR. Only in the local population register will information on naturalisation
still be kept.
3
418
Country Report: Germany
Apart from the asylum procedure there is a possibility to grant
temporary protection for a specified period of time to a group of aliens in
case of a mass influx of war refugees and civil war refugees.
If an application has been rejected as (simply) unfounded, it is possible to
appeal to the Administrative Court within two weeks. The applicant may
await the appeal decision in Germany. For applications rejected as
manifestly unfounded, the appeal has to be lodged within one week
together with an urgent action application to the Administrative Court to
prevent potential deportation. Further appeals are possible first at the Upper
Administrative court, and finally at the Federal Administrative Court.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
In Germany, the Länder are responsible for the implementation of
citizenship regulations, while the legislative competence exclusively lies
with the central state. Applications for naturalisation are processed by local
naturalisation authorities. Only naturalisations from abroad are processed
centrally by the Federal Office of Administration.
The conditions for acquisition and transmission of citizenship are laid
down in a variety of different acts. After the last major reform of citizenship
law in 2000, there are six ways of acquiring German Citizenship. Citizenship
may be acquired by birth, by adoption (in the case of minors), by
declaration, by reparation (Wiedergutmachung), by belonging to German
stock (Volkszugehörigkeit) or by naturalisation. The right to acquire German
citizenship by reparation applies to all persons and their children and
children’s children, expatriated between 1933 and 1945 for political, racerelated or religious reasons with legal entitlement to German citizenship.
Since 2000 the Citizenship Law provides for a period of eight years of
residence in the territory after which citizenship can be acquired. General
requirements are: good moral conduct of the applicant, the possession of a
valid residence authorisation, positive stance towards the federal state,
adequate means of subsistence, adequate German language skills. If
immigration authorities have initiated procedures to terminate the residence
status of the applicant for application, or a residence ban has been issued
against him/her, the application is not considered. The same provisions
apply on relatives of naturalising foreigners, even if they have been resident
for less than eight years (co-naturalisation). Concerning the waiting period
there are some exceptions such as for recognised refugees, displaced and
stateless persons where a legal residence of at least seven years is required
or five years if born in Germany. In addition family members of Germans
enjoy shorter waiting periods.
419
T H E S I M
Since August 1999, until when persons ‘belonging to German stock’
(within the meaning of Article 116 Basic Law) (Aussiedler) had to have their
status claim screened by regional naturalisation authorities, ethnic Germans
obtain German citizenship automatically after screening of their claim by the
Federal Office of Administration. As no renunciation of former nationality is
required, dual citizenship may occur.
If an alien who has settled in the federal territory acquires nationality
otherwise than by descent, the regional Immigration Authorities are
notified. This decision leads to the deletion of all records related to the
naturalised person in the AZR and the asylum database MARiS.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt, DESTATIS)
produces regular statistics on the German and foreign resident population.
Since no census has been carried out since 1987, statistics on the resident
population are estimates based on the results of the 1987 census, which are
continuously adjusted by the use of vital and migration statistics, as well, as
to some extent, the ‘micro-census’. For the foreign resident population, the
statistics derived from the AZR are the most important source information,
since population estimates only give breakdowns by citizenship categories,
not individual citizenships.
During the 1987 census, a traditional method based on census
questionnaires was applied and every individual with a residence in
Germany was enumerated including foreign students, foreigners holding
temporary or permanent permits and asylum seekers including family
members. Persons with main residence abroad, tourists, foreign diplomats,
members of foreign armed forces (even if they were German citizens and
had their main residence in Germany) were not counted.
Because of strong, principled opposition to the census4 as well as the high
costs involved, no census has been carried out since then. However, a
register-based census is planned for 2010. Basic demographic characteristics
will be drawn from the municipal population registers as well as other
4 The last census of 1987 was initially scheduled for 1983 and was delayed for four years
because of widespread activism against the census.
420
Country Report: Germany
central registers such as the register on employment. In addition, other
decentralised registers as well as surveys on buildings and flats will be taken
into consideration.
Statistics on vital events and migration are based on municipal
population registers and processed and aggregated at regional level by
Länder statistical offices. These statistics are subsequently compiled by the
DESTATIS and used to elaborate estimates on the usually resident
population (Bevölkerungsfortschreibung, adjustment of the population). These
figures consider the population with main residence (Hauptwohnsitz) in
Germany, and thus follow the de jure concept. For non-nationals, the AZR is
the most important source of data and the statistics produced on this basis
include all foreigners (including EU/EEA and Swiss nationals) resident in
Germany for more than three months. However, some categories as
foreigners with specific visas for temporary employment may not be
included. There are no regular checks of data between the local population
registers and the local immigration authorities. Data from the AZR may be
extracted at any time of the year but the statistical tables are produced on a
yearly base for national and international needs.
Data on the usually resident population are disaggregated by citizenship
and not by country of birth as requested by the EU Regulation. Besides,
there are some discrepancies between figures on stock of non-nationals
proposed by DESTATIS in their annual population estimates
(Bevölkerungsfortschreibung) and the figures extracted from the AZR. The
former comprises the whole population but there is no detailed breakdown
by citizenship (there is a distinction between nationals and non-nationals).
Data on the non-national resident population from these two data sources
differ in terms of total number and age structure. Partly, this is so because
migration statistics which are one component of the calculation of annual
estimates done by DESTATIS, cover all persons registered with a main place
of residence, irrespective of length of stay, while the AZR only includes
persons staying more than three months. Moreover since many foreigners
leaving Germany don’t report their departure, stock figures on the foreign
resident population based on the AZR are considered to be significantly
higher than the actual number of foreign residents5. Stock figures from the
AZR for a given municipality are also usually much higher than those from
the relevant local population registers, suggesting that the AZR tends to
over-count non-nationals. Moreover Ethnic Germans are not included in the
AZR and thus are not reflected in official statistics. Finally there is no
5 The last census in (West) Germany (1987) showed that the AZR recorded some 400,000 foreign
residents more than enumerated by the census.
421
T H E S I M
consistent source of disaggregation of population by citizenship (except the
local population registers themselves) that would include both nationals and
non-nationals.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Data on international migration flows are collected only by DESTATIS
and total figures are published on a monthly basis; detailed data by
citizenship, country of origin/destination age and sex are available annually.
The source of data is the administrative registration of arrivals and
departures from the local population registers. Data are transmitted by
photocopy of the registration forms or electronic format from the local level
to the respective statistical offices of the Länder. There, individual data are
anonymised and aggregated results are transferred to DESTATIS.
All migratory movements are collected the same way and international
migrations may be considered separately even if the country of origin and
destination are not available. Country of previous/ next residence is
imputed from the country of citizenship (except in the case of newborn
children).
German migration statistics do not propose any distinction between short
term and long term migrants. Thus, short term migrants will be covered in
the same way as are long term migrants, except if explicitly exempted from
the obligation to register (as are seasonal migrants in some Federal States).
Official statistics on emigration tend to underestimate the number of
migration outflows or report them with delay, especially those involving
foreign nationals, as they often do not notify local authorities when leaving
Germany and may therefore be discovered only later on the occasion of
official notifications.
Since German flow statistics are not based on persons but on the number
of changes of residence between Germany and other countries (‘migration
events’), the number of recorded migrations will always be slightly larger
than the number of actual migrants for that year as more than one
immigration or emigration may be counted for a given person on a yearly
base.
Data on the place of birth are entered in the population register upon
registration. However, according to the national population statistics
regulation, this information is not transmitted to the regional statistical
offices, so that statistical data by country of birth as requested by the EU
Regulation are not currently available.
International migration flows by country of origin and country of
destination are significantly higher than figures provided by the sending or
422
Country Report: Germany
receiving countries. This is due to differences in the time criterion used to
define migrants, as Germany register all migrants whatever their expected
duration of stay and the registration has to be done within eight days. Some
exceptions to this rule are found in 2003 for flows from Germany to
Denmark, United Kingdom and Cyprus; and from Austria to Germany.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
Since September 2004, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees
produces statistics on residents permits based on the AZR6. Data are stored
centrally and administered by this Federal Office but entered by a range of
administrative entities, including branch offices of the Office for Migration
and Refugees adjudicating asylum claims, embassies, and border control
agencies. In most cases, data are first sent to one of 648 regional Foreigners
Authorities (Lokale Ausländerbehörden) which then feeds the data into the
AZR7.
The AZR records the types of permits issued, but not the reason for
issuing a permit. Thus, statistics on the purpose of stay as requested by the
EU Regulation are only available from other sources. For example, data by
purpose of stay, proposed in the 2001 DG JLS annual statistical report are
based on statistics of visa applications/decisions (for family reunion),
statistics of higher education (where the stock of students in their first term
was used) and the microcensus (for employment related purposes).
The new immigration Act (Zuwanderungsgesetz) which entered into force
on 1st January 2005 completely changes the legislation concerning permits as
the number of possible permit titles is reduced to two.
Currently, only stock data are published (valid permits). However, it is
possible to compute flow data (permits issued), as the date on which the
permit was issued is recorded by the AZR. The date until which the permit
is valid is also entered, so that the length of validity can also be determined.
As of 1st January 2005, data on former permits are no longer overwritten but
will be stored in an historical database. The changes, however, will only be
successively and possibly never fully implemented, since the changes are
only fully effective in regard to new permits issued. In principle, however,
the data required by the EU Regulation on permits will thus be available at
least for those permits issued under the new Immigration Act.
6 Before September 2004, the register was under the authority of the Federal Office for
Administration.
7 There is however evidence that data stored by the regional Foreigners Authorities differ from
regional data in the AZR.
423
T H E S I M
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees publishes monthly asylum
statistics, containing statistics on the asylum applications submitted during
the reference period (preceding month), and detailed statistics of asylum
applications, decisions, and unresolved cases administered on an annual
base. For statistical purposes, there is a separate database - data warehouse
system IDE (Intelligente Datenevaluation/ Intelligent Data Evaluation). It is a
‘live system’ and is used to produce cumulative statistics. It records three
types of information: stocks of pending applications, applications (flow) and
decisions (flow). When the system was launched, an initial stock of pending
applications was entered which is continuously adjusted by the two flows
(applications and decisions) recorded by the system. As IDE/MARiS stores
historical data and persons are identified by an individual code, it is now
possible for statistical purpose to trace persons through the procedure and
undertake longitudinal analyses. Every asylum case, including manifestly
unfounded cases should be entered into the system.
Due to legal constraints, there are some differences of definition in regard
to the data required by the EU Regulation. As an example, the definition of a
minor asylum seeker only includes minors under the age of 16.
Nevertheless, the MARiS/IDE database would in theory allow provide
figures by minors under eighteen, as requested by the EU Regulation. Both
withdrawals of applications and termination of a procedure on other
grounds (e.g. if the alien disappears) automatically result in a negative
decision. However, the MARiS database could easily be reorganised to
distinguish withdrawals of applications, termination of procedures and
negative decisions on substantive grounds.
Since 1993, asylum seekers are required to register with the local
population registers and are thus normally included in both immigration
statistics (flows) and population statistics (stocks). If a person leaves the
country and reports his or her departure to the local population offices, he or
she will also be included in the emigration statistics and excluded from the
stock. However, it is unclear, to what extent persons voluntarily leaving the
country after a negative asylum decision or will report their departure to the
local population register. Similarly, it is not clear whether expulsion or
deportation will automatically lead to deregistration from the population
register.
424
Country Report: Germany
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
Statistics on acquisition of citizenship produced by DESTATIS are based
on the records of the local naturalisation authorities. Statistics are published
annually, referring to the calendar year.
The way in which data on naturalisation is collected has changed
frequently during the last one and half decades or so, resulting in several
data breaks. Naturalisation statistics have been given a legal basis only in
2000. The 2000 reform also determined the variables to be collected. Statistics
are available by former nationality and, if applicable, nationalities retained
after naturalisation, legal basis of acquisition (all grounds can currently be
distinguished), age, sex, residence at naturalisation and duration of
residence in Germany. From 2005 onwards an additional variable on age
upon entry in Germany should be available. Accordingly all variables
requested by the EU Regulation are available.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Harald Lederer from the Federal Office for
Migration and Refugees, who coordinated the preparation of the THESIM
meeting, held in Nüremberg on 16th December 2004. Thanks also to Claire
Grobecker (DESTATIS) and Klaus Trutzel (City of Nüremberg) for their
comments and corrections to this country report.
425
Country Report
Estonia
Anne Herm
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The database for recording and maintaining basic information on the
resident population of Estonia is the Population Register (Rahvastikuregister).
This centralised administrative database for the registration of the
population has been in effect since 2001, although the data collection started
in 1994. The authority responsible for organising the registration of the
resident population and for maintaining the Population Register is the
Population Facts Department under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. 202
rural municipalities named vald, 39 urban municipalities named linn are
responsible for the registration of births and deaths and for updating the
place of residence of their own population. In addition the Citizenship and
Migration Board under the Ministry of Internal Affairs sends information on
changes of citizenship and issues of personal documents, including
residence permits, to the Population Register.
Basic information on the resident population of Estonia is recorded in the
Population Register. There is also information on all persons living abroad
who have been granted Estonian citizenship since 19921. Newborn children
are systematically registered and therefore are attributed a personal identity
code while records on all dead persons are systematically deactivated and
transferred to the archive. In the Population Register a personal identity
code is attributed to everybody and this code is widely used for
1 For these persons the list of demographic variables is very limited and the coverage is
unsatisfactory. Estonian citizens living abroad are recorded in the Population Register in two
cases: (i) when they previously had their place of residence in Estonia and have declared their
emigration when leaving the country; (ii) when a citizen of Estonia (by birth or by descent)
living aboard has been issued Estonian passport (this person may have never had the place of
residence in Estonia).
T H E S I M
identification purposes. Immigrants and emigrants are registered when they
declare their new place of residence in the country, when arriving from
abroad, or their next place of residence abroad when emigrating. For aliens
who need a residence permit the registration and the attribution of PIN are
based on information received from the Citizenship and Migration Board
but inclusion in the resident population will only be effective when a place
of residence is declared.
According to the General Part of the Civil Code Act a permanent resident
in Estonia is defined as an Estonian citizen or an alien who has a permanent
residence permit, both residing in Estonia for at least 183 days a year.
However this definition is not currently implemented for registration of the
person’s place of residence in the Population Register. The place of residence
recorded in the Population Register is unique and is considered as being the
legal place of residence although it may differ from that where person lives.
Only since July 2005 has everybody been required to register within 30 days
any change of residence including leaving the country or returning from
abroad.
As far as coverage is concerned, the basic data used for building the
Population Register in 2001 were taken from an existing centralised database
of population, the quality of which was questionable. That caused obvious
coverage problems concerning both identification of the resident population
and recorded demographic variables. Checks are currently carried out in
order to improve the coverage and overall reliability of the Population
Register.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
The registration of international immigrations and emigrations is based
on self-declaration by the concerned person when arriving in the country or
leaving for abroad. In practice, the registration of immigration is different
for Estonian citizens returning to Estonia and for foreigners entering in the
country.
ƒ Estonian citizens who had their previous place of residence abroad
and returned to Estonia will be registered in the new municipality of
residence without any requirements on the intended duration of
stay. The form for notifying international migration is the same as
for internal migration (Notification of the place of residence). This
form will be filled-in at the local municipality at the place of
destination in Estonia. Thereafter the new place of residence will be
added to the basic information already recorded for this person in
428
Country Report: Estonia
the Population Register. The individual will then have a legal place
of residence in Estonia.
ƒ For a foreigner who receives a residence permit from the Citizenship
and Migration Board, basic data (name, date of birth, place of birth
and citizenship) are transferred to the Population Register when the
residence permit is issued. Thereafter this foreigner must, within 30
days, declare his or her place of residence in Estonia to the
Population Register. Data on ethnic nationality, mother tongue,
educational level and activity status may also be recorded upon
agreement. Marital status and family relations will be recorded only
if the Estonian civil registration authority has registered a marriage,
divorce or birth of child. After declaration of the place of residence in
Estonia the foreigner will be a legal resident of Estonia and the
corresponding international immigration will be acknowledged.
An Estonian citizen or a foreigner who leaves the country in order to live
abroad must notify their emigration to the local municipality where they
were registered in Estonia or at the consulate abroad using the same
notification form. The records of this person will be kept active in the
Population Register but the place of residence will be changed indicating
that the person is not a resident of Estonia. When living abroad temporarily,
a person may keep his or her place of residence in Estonia but may give a
contact address abroad which is recorded in the Population Register. This
person will still be considered as part of the legal resident population of
Estonia.
For any change of address, including those related to international
migration, there are no requirements on the minimum length of stay in the
country or abroad except that the person concerned must register the new
place of residence no later than 30 days after settlement.
The registration of place of residence abroad may involve some financial
and social disadvantages but it is a precondition for receiving consular
services abroad. Most Estonians living abroad are not deregistered and are
still part of the resident population. For foreigners with a temporary
residence permit it may be possible to live in Estonia without being
registered in the Population Register, except that they must have the place of
residence in Estonia recorded in the Population Register when applying for
an extension of the residence permit.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Citizenship and Migration Board under the Ministry of Internal
Affairs is the responsible authority for organising the State Register of
429
T H E S I M
Residence and Work Permits (Elamis- ja töölubade register). It also maintains
Visa Register and supplies on-line access to these registers for Estonian
consulates abroad and to its own regional service offices.
The Register of Residence and Work Permits is based on all residence
permit applications and includes the decision taken about the issue of the
residence permit and historical data on previously issued permits. A
personal identity code (PIN) is attributed to every person in the register (the
same as that in Population Register). This PIN allows the linkage of
residence permits issued to the same person. The contents of data differ
according to the type of permit the alien applies for and the purpose of the
intended stay in the country.
This register is not directly linked to the Population Register but the
information is systematically transferred to the Population Register in order
to receive a PIN for a new residence permit holder and to supply the
Population Register with information about the issued document. From 2002
residence permit holders may receive an ID card that indicates the
possession of a residence permit. This information is also transferred to the
Population Register.
Residence permits for EEA citizensand for citizens of other countries are
granted differently:
ƒ For EEA citizens residence permits are generally issued with a
validity of up to five years. These residence permits are renewable.
However, if the EEA citizen is employed in another Member State of
the European Union or if he or she is a seasonal worker in Estonia he
or she may live in Estonia without a residence permit. Unemployed
persons may stay without residence permits for up to six months for
the purpose of seeking employment if they have registered that they
are seeking employment.
ƒ For non-EEA citizens, two types of residence permits are issued:
fixed-term (temporary) residence permit and permanent residence
permit. The fixed-term residence permit may be issued with a
maximum validity of up to five years. Fixed-term residence permits
may be extended if the same reason is continuous. A permanent
residence permit may be issued to a non-EEA citizen who has
resided in Estonia on the basis of a fixed-term residence permit for at
least three years within the last five years and who has a valid fixedterm residence permit, an effective residence in Estonia (registered in
the Population Register) and a permanent legal income for
subsistence in Estonia. Permanent residence permits are not issued
to aliens who have received a residence permit in Estonia for
employment, for establishing enterprise or for study.
430
Country Report: Estonia
As a rule, the first residence permit should be applied for from abroad,
but there are number of exceptions (citizens of visa-free countries and aliens
who settled in Estonia before 1st July 1990) in which a person may apply in
Estonia at a regional department of the Citizenship and Migration Board.
A residence permit holder who resides in Estonia and wishes to stay
outside Estonia longer than 183 days a year must register his or her stay
outside at the Citizenship and Migration Board in order to keep the validity
of the residence permit.
For some countries of citizenship the number of aliens who are allowed
to settle in Estonia is limited with an annual immigration quota, which shall
not exceed 0.05 per cent of the permanent population of Estonia. This quota
does not apply to EEA citizens and those of United States of America,
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Japan and some other third-country
nationals under specific circumstances.
A.4. Registration of asylum
The Citizenship and Migration Board is also the responsible authority on
all matters related to asylum requests. It maintains the appropriate
databases including all persons who applied for asylum and who have been
granted a refugee status.
An asylum seeker may submit an application at a border checkpoint
when entering Estonia or ex-post at the Citizenship and Migration Board.
The normal procedure may result in the following positive decisions:
ƒ asylum granted on the basis of the Geneva Convention (Convention
Refugee status);
ƒ issuance of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds.
In both cases a fixed-term residence permit with a period of validity of
up to two years will be issued. In all negative decisions, the rejection or
refusal includes an order to leave Estonia immediately.
Apart from the asylum procedure there is a possibility to receive
temporary protection for a specified period of time in case of a mass influx
of displaced persons.
An asylum seeker may appeal against the negative decision on his
application to the Administrative Court in Tallinn, after that to the District
Court (II level) and to the Supreme Court (III level) and all subsequent
decisions are also registered in the asylum database.
After having been granted Convention refugee status or a humanitarian
protection status and having received a fixed-term residence permit, the
person has to declare his or her place of residence to the Population Register.
431
T H E S I M
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
The Citizenship and Migration Board under the Ministry of the Internal
Affairs is responsible for processing applications Estonian citizenship.
Information on applicants and decisions to grant or remove Estonian
citizenship are recorded in the Database of persons who have applied for the
acquisition or restoration of Estonian Citizenship. After the Republic of
Estonia was restored in 1991, the 1938 citizenship law of Estonia was
restored. Citizenship was restored or granted to those who had been citizens
prior to the occupation of Estonia by Soviet Union and to their descendants.
In 1995 a new Citizenship Act entered into force that introduced new rules
for acquiring Estonian citizenship by birth, naturalisation or other
procedures. The purpose of this act was to enable aliens permanently living
in Estonia to acquire Estonian citizenship.
The right to acquire Estonian citizenship by naturalisation applies to
persons who are at least fifteen years old, have stayed in Estonia on the basis
of a permanent residence permit for at least five years and fulfil other
cultural and linguistic conditions stated by the Law.
Dual citizenship is prohibited by law. A person, who in addition to the
Estonian citizenship acquires another citizenship by birth, has to waive
either Estonian or the other citizenship within three years after he or she
attains the age of eighteen.
There are a number of citizens of the former USSR staying in Estonia
since 20th August 1991 who have no right to Estonian citizenship by birth or
by descent. These persons remain ‘persons whose citizenship is not
determined’ until they have applied for Estonian citizenship or another one
(and have informed the Estonian authorities). These persons must apply for
a residence permit. However, on request they may be granted an Estonian
aliens' passport for foreign travel purposes — so-called ‘grey passport’. An
amendment act adopted in 1998 gave the right to obtain citizenship to
children born in Estonia after 26th February 1992 who do not have
citizenship of another state, if their parents (or single parent or adoptive
parent) are stateless or ‘persons whose citizenship has not determined’ and
have been residents in the country for no less than five years.
432
Country Report: Estonia
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The Statistical Office of Estonia (Statistikaanmet) is responsible for
organising Population and Housing Censuses and producing population
estimates between successive censuses. The last Population and Housing
Census carried out on 31st March 2000, was the first independent census
after World War II and followed a traditional enumeration method. The
census was carried out for statistical purposes, independently of the
Population Register and other administrative registers.
The statistical definition of the population with usual residence in Estonia
is related to the census definition for the determination of the usually
resident population at the census date. The concept of the ‘usual residence’
was based on minimum duration of stay or intended duration of stay in the
country of at least one year. This definition is different from the definition
currently used in the Population Register. Diplomatic staff of the Republic of
Estonia and their family members, who were in mission abroad at the
moment of the Census, were also considered among the usually resident
population of Estonia. Annual population estimates are based on census
data and adjusted by data on births and deaths. Migrations are not used
because of very low reliability and accordingly the population figure is
overestimated in annual estimates as international emigrations exceed
international immigrations. However, the definition used for determination
of place of residence of a newborn or dead person is based on the abovepresented rules of registration of place of residence in the Population
Register and not the census definition. This introduces an additional bias in
annual population estimates.
An asylum seeker will only be counted in the usual resident population
when a residence permit has been granted (whatever the duration) and after
the registration of the place of residence in the Population Register.
Annual estimates of population are produced and data published on age
and sex structure and on ethnic composition of the population. The
distribution by citizenship and country of birth is published only as census
results on 31st March 2000.
Before the 2000 Census there was no data source for the distribution of
total population by citizenship. The more recent data based on the total
number of valid residence permits holders are quite close to the census
results on non-nationals. This indicates the future possibility of estimating
433
T H E S I M
the annual stock of non-nationals using information on valid residence
permit holders.
Discrepancies may be found in the figures on the population with foreign
citizenship proposed in the international databases. These discrepancies
result from the fact that persons who had not determined their Estonian
citizenship or other country’s citizenship for the time of census were
included as aliens in the census figure, but may have been excluded from
non-nationals in other data sources.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
The Statistical Office of Estonia is also responsible for producing statistics
on international migration flows. The data source for migration data is the
Population Register, where place of residence is updated by the notifications
of the place of residence recorded in local municipalities. Statistical Office
receives every month an electronic file with all records in the Population
Register on persons who have registered a new place of residence, including
those who have arrived from abroad or left the country. The following
variables are included for international migration: personal identity code,
date of registration of new place of residence, new place of residence in
Estonia and country of origin for immigrant, last place of residence in
Estonia and country of destination for emigrants, citizenship and
information on residence and work permit.
There is no specific selection made for determination of migration events
among the changes of place of residence from and to foreign country. All
such changes of residence are considered as international migrations. It is
possible to restrict definition of migration event based on one-year intended
duration for aliens according to validity of residence permit, but it is not
possible to implement this UN recommended definition on citizens on
Estonia. However because of the low reliability this migration data is
currently not published neither used for the adjustment of the annual figure
of the usual population of Estonia.
Variables requested by the EU Regulation are generally available in the
Population Register and the requested distribution of migration events may
be easily produced given satisfactory data quality.
Data on migration based on the analysis of registered migrations for
1992-1999 were published and presented in the databases (including the
Eurostat database). Nevertheless these were declared unreliable following
the results of the 2000 Population Census. Data from receiving or sending
countries may be compared with the same flows registered in Estonia and as
434
Country Report: Estonia
a rule the Estonian figures are much smaller than those collected in the
country of origin or destination2.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The Estonian Citizenship and Migration Board produces statistics on
residence permits based on the data included in the Register of Residence
and Work permits. There is no special statistical definition or method of
selection used for providing statistics so that the Estonian data appear as
they are directly extracted from the Register. However the data requested by
international bodies are usually extracted according to a specific data
request.
Statistics on residence permits are produced annually and quarterly.
These data present information about applications and decisions and on the
population with valid residence permits. Annual statistical data have been
published since 1998 and more detailed data have been compiled since 2003
on a quarterly base for internal use of the Citizenship and Migration Board.
A selection has been made by type of residence permit (temporary and
permanent residence permits) and the grounds for issuing (family
reunification, employment, study, legal income, foreign agreement). Up to
now no statistics have been presented separately on first temporary
residence permits and extensions or first temporary permit for a person
(regardless of the grounds) and subsequent permits issued to the same
person. The variables of sex, year of birth, country of birth, citizenship, date
of entry and reason for stay are collected but data are not currently
published. All variables required by the EU Regulation are collected in the
Register of Residence and Work Permits and the production of tables will be
possible following some technical solutions.
The issuance of residence permits is not automatically considered as
immigration in Estonia even if data on the person and the residence permit
are transferred to the Population Register immediately after a positive
decision has been taken. The person is considered as having immigrated
only after notification of the place of residence at local municipality for the
Population Register.
2 Both immigration and emigration flows registered in Estonia compile only 50-60 percent of the
total number of the same flows registered in the countries of origin or destination.
435
T H E S I M
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The Citizenship and Migration Board produces statistics on asylum
seekers. Numbers of asylum applicants and asylum decisions are very low
in Estonia. As a consequence, the statistical information on asylum is limited
but as the required variables are collected, all statistics may be produced
according to requirements of the EU Regulation. The problem of privacy has
to be considered as most cells have less than five persons when the data are
cross-tabulated.
Asylum seekers who are granted asylum are included in the immigration
statistics and the population figure, after issuance of the residence permit
and notification of the place of residence at local municipality where the
person intends to live. If the person leaves the country he or she should be
included in the emigration statistics and excluded from the population
number when they notify their change of residence at the local municipality.
Asylum seekers who leave the country after a negative decision or before a
decision is taken are never considered among immigrants and emigrants.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
The Citizenship and Migration Board produces statistics on acquisition
and loss of citizenship and these are published by Statistical Office of
Estonia. The source for that information is the Database on Persons applying
for Estonian Citizenship or Renovation of Estonian Citizenship and
Database on Persons who have Renounced Estonian Citizenship. Data on
changes of citizenship are based on decisions on acquisition of citizenship by
naturalisation and on acceptance of renunciation of Estonian citizenship by
the Citizenship and Migration Board.
Data on acquisition and loss of citizenship are produced annually and
monthly, disaggregated by former and next citizenship.
Ackowledgements
The THESIM meeting was successfully organised in Tallinn on 25th
November 2004 under the responsibility of Professor Kalev Katus of the
EKDK. Comments and corrections to this report from the members of the
Migration and Citizenship Board were gratefully received.
436
Country Report
Greece
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
In Greece a Civil Register (Dimotologio) is held in each of the 121
municipalities under the overall responsibility of Ministry of the Interior,
Public Administration and Decentralisation. The Civil Register includes
information on all Greek citizens according to their place (municipality) of
birth or, if different, their municipality of registration. The first inscription in
the Civil Register is normally done in the municipality of birth. It is usual for
parents to declare their recently born child in the municipality where they
live, even if they are registered in another. The child may later ask to change
this place of registration in the Civil Register. Accordingly the place of
registration in the Civil Register is usually the place of birth or place of
origin and this is the sign of family and cultural links. A large number of
Greek citizens, mainly those living in large cities, are not registered there but
in villages or remote islands, where they return for electoral purposes. The
system completely excludes non-nationals living in the country even those
who are born in the country.
The local Civil Registers are not centralised at national level, however
evaluation and procedures on legislative and technical aspects are in
progress towards such a new centralised system. The Police (Ministry of
Public Order) already hold a centralised individual database mostly used for
the issuance of identity cards. Even if ID cards are compulsory, this database
is unfortunately not accurate and covers only Greek citizens (all personal
elements of identity are recorded including the address of permanent
residence, the date of issuance of the card, etc). ID cards must be renewed
every ten years.
T H E S I M
A.2. Registration of international migrations
Greek citizens who move permanently to a new place of usual residence
are not required to change their municipality of registration or to report their
departure to the Civil Register. In fact, there are neither regulations nor
forms for reporting these changes of residence. People tend to stay
registered in their place of origin for sentimental reasons and practical
advantages even if the change of place of registration is allowed and may
occur. The same situation is valid for international migrations that are
therefore not recorded.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
In 1997 and 2001 regularisation operations for undocumented
immigrants took place in Greece. Under the second regularisation
approximately 350,000 foreigners were granted temporary residence
permits.
In addition to the regularisation, the Immigration Act (Law 2910/2001)
and its amendments established a new legal framework for admission and
residence, acquisition of citizenship and integration of foreigners. According
to the latest legislative provisions, residence permits, and other titles for
foreigners legally residing in Greece, are now mostly administrated by the
Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation, where
the Directorate of Aliens and Migration is the responsible authority for the
planning and formulation of the migration policy for legal migrants. A new
system regulates the legal residence in the country of third-country nationals
who are granted a residence permit.
The law does not apply to EU citizens, asylum seekers and refugees or
persons of dual citizenship who are considered to be Greek, or other persons
of Greek ethnicity, such as immigrants from the former Soviet Union (Greek
Pontiaks) or of Albanian ethnicity. All these categories basically fall under
the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Order.
For third-country nationals the relevant provisions of the Schengen
acquis regulate the entry in Greece for short-term visits. Schengen visas are
normally issued with a validity of three months. The 2001 immigration law
regulates the entry of the same persons for long-term purposes. This
establishes the various purposes for entry as well as the procedure issuing
the relevant visas. In principle, third-country nationals wishing to enter
Greece for long-term purposes first need to obtain the national visa (type D)
and subsequently have to apply for the relevant residence permit after
438
Country Report: Greece
entering the national territory. A temporary residence permit may be
granted for the following reasons:
ƒ working as employees (one year permit, renewable);
ƒ self-employment (two years, renewable);
ƒ seasonal work (the residence permit is granted for six months);
ƒ family reunification (one year, renewable following the course of the
third-country national residence permit);
ƒ studies and professional training (one year, renewable);
ƒ family members of Greek or EU citizens (five years);
ƒ directors/administrators and personnel of companies (one year,
renewable);
ƒ sports activities (one year, renewable);
ƒ other reasons such as for scientific, research, humanitarian purposes,
the clergy, reasons of public interest, etc.). In this case permits are
granted for one year and may be renewed.
A foreigner who is already in the country and who wishes to be granted
a residence permit needs to submit an application to the municipality or
commune of domicile or residence at least two months before expiration of
the visa. The local authority examines the completeness of the supporting
documents and transmits all to the Aliens and Immigration Directorate of
the region. This service examines the application within one month of its
receipt and, after taking into account reasons concerning public order and
security of the country through a request to the Police, invites the alien to an
interview with the Immigration Committee. Then, the residence permit is
granted by resolution of the Secretary General of the Region based on the
opinion of the Immigration Committee, with the exception of residence
permits for ‘other reasons’ which are granted by joint decision of the
different ministries. A foreigner who intends to enter Greece for work and
residence must apply to the Greek consular authority and employment
offices operating in his/her own country. In fact, the system for immigration
is based on annual quotas of temporary work permits to be granted every
year per citizenship, kind and duration of employment and further other
conditions for each region of the country.
A residence permit of indefinite duration may be issued to third-country
nationals having legally resided in Greece for an uninterrupted period of ten
years.
EEA citizens as well as nationals of selected countries such as the United
States, may freely enter Greece and stay for three months overall within a
time period of six months starting from the date of first entry. Thereafter a
residence permit for a EEA citizen will be granted for a period of five years.
This permit is renewable.
439
T H E S I M
For ethnic Greeks with foreign citizenship (mostly Albanian citizens with
Greek origin) a special identity card is issued and used as residence permits
for a period of five years that is renewable.
There are three distinct databases for the registration of aliens, each of
them related to a specific group of persons
ƒ an Aliens Register for third-country nationals legally residing in
Greece (Mitroou Allodapon);
ƒ a file for special identity cards issued to ethnic Greeks with foreign
citizenship in which are included ethnic Greeks with foreign
citizenship (mostly Albanian citizens of Greek origin);
ƒ a file for residence permits issued to EEA citizens.
Basic characteristics of third-country nationals legally residing in the
country with a residence permit are recorded in the Aliens Register, the
central database at the Ministry of the Interior, Public Administration and
Decentralisation. This database is continually updated with personal
information available from the regional databases. There is no procedure for
deregistration from the database when the permit holder leaves Greece. On
the other hand, the departure of each foreigner holding a residence permit is
recorded at the border crossing point, though there is no indication of a
provisional or permanent exit or the type of permit originally issued.
External sources consider the management of the Aliens Register held by the
Ministry of the Interior to be of a very high standard, with minimal double
counts and efficient crosschecking of data. However, there are different
approaches in the periodicity of updating from the regional offices to the
central database. In particular, the central database is continuously updated
but it is not fixed at any point in time, as regional administrators may enter
data at any time referring to a permit issued several months before. Thus,
extractions from the database with a recent reference date or period may be
unreliable.
The Police (Ministry of Public Order) register EEA citizens and foreigners
of Greek origin. EEA citizens with the intention of working, first need to
register with the Department of Social Inspection of the Ministry of
Employment. Information is recorded on separate databases by the service
granting permission for all the different types of permits. Each registration
includes all the identifying elements and other information in terms of
individual records with a specific assigned number. Some information is
registered and coded for security reasons and to facilitate both registration
and searches.
Third-country nationals and EEA citizens holding any type of residence
permit will not be registered in the municipality Civil Registers.
440
Country Report: Greece
A.4. Registration of asylum
According to the Greek Aliens Act, last revised in 1999, an applicant for
asylum may lodge their request at the airport, seaport, and land border or
within the country. There is no inadmissibility clause. All requests for
asylum are examined, either under the accelerated or the normal procedure.
In the accelerated procedure the application must be examined the same
day. This procedure is applied for airports and seaports. The accelerated
procedure is also followed for land border applications and in-country
applications if:
ƒ the claim is judged manifestly unfounded;
ƒ the applicant comes from a safe third country.
The remaining applications are dealt with in the normal procedure. In the
accelerated procedure, the first instance decision is taken by the Head of
Police Security and Order Division of the Ministry of Public Order. In the
normal procedure it is taken by the by the Secretary General of this ministry.
In the accelerated procedure the possible outcomes are:
ƒ positive, Convention status, including a renewable five-year identity
card and residence permit;
ƒ positive, humanitarian status, including a one-year renewable
special residence card;
ƒ negative, with an order to leave the country;
ƒ not suitable for this procedure and transferred to the normal
procedure.
In the normal procedure the possible outcomes are:
ƒ positive, Convention status, including a renewable five-year identity
card and residence permit;
ƒ positive, humanitarian status, including a one-year renewable
special residence card;
ƒ negative, with an order to leave the country.
Apart from the asylum procedure, Greek law also recognises the
possibility of granting temporary protection for a specified period of time to
a group of aliens in case of a mass influx of displaced persons. However, the
decision on the exact scope of this provision is still to be taken.
When a claim is rejected under the accelerated procedure, the applicant
can appeal to the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Order within
ten days. After a hearing before the Appeals Board Committee, the second
instance decision must be taken within 30 days. However, for those in the
transit zones of airports and seaports the deadlines are reduced by half.
Under the normal procedure, the applicant can appeal a negative
decision at the Minister of Public Order within 30 days of notification of the
441
T H E S I M
decision. The Minister should take the second instance decision within 90
days of the appeal’s date of submission. This decision is also taken on the
basis of a recommendation of the Appeals Board Committee.
Under both procedures, a further appeal can be made to the supreme
administrative court, the Council of State. However, the case will then only
be reviewed to determine the legality of the procedure followed (in a judicial
review).
After the granting of special humanitarian refugee status, no appeal or
review procedures exist.
The Alien Law, which came into effect in June 2001, stipulates that
asylum seekers processed under the accelerated procedure, can be detained
in a border transit zone for up to fifteen days. Those that cannot be removed
can be held in custody for up to three months.
In February 2004, the first statute specifying the conditions for legal aid
for aliens came into force, but this does not apply to asylum litigation.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
There are three levels of registration of acquisitions of citizenship: a
central level at Ministry of the Interior regarding naturalisation cases, a
regional level regarding selected naturalisations and a local one regarding
acquisitions based on grounds such as adoption or recognition of children.
In any case all naturalised persons must be recorded in the Civil Register of
a Greek municipality.
According to the last regulation, Greek citizenship may be acquired as
follows, including the main cases:
ƒ By birth:
- A child born to a Greek citizen acquires Greek citizenship. A
person born in Greece acquires Greek citizenship provided that
he/she does not acquire a foreign citizenship by birth or that
he/she is of unknown citizenship.
ƒ By adoption (limited to minors).
ƒ By legitimisation (recognition):
- A foreigner born out of wedlock who is legitimised by a Greek
citizen becomes Greek as from the date of legitimisation, if at that
time he/she has not attained legal age (eighteen).
ƒ By naturalisation:
- Naturalisation may be granted to foreign citizens who have
reached the age of eighteen at the time of submission of the
application and who have no criminal record. In addition, a
442
Country Report: Greece
person of non-Greek origin must have been legally resident in
Greece for a total of ten out of the twelve years preceding the
application; the spouse of a Greek national, a stateless person or a
foreigner who has been recognized as a refugee only need a fiveyear residence. In the above-required period the time spent in
Greece as a diplomatic agent or administrative officer of a foreign
country cannot be included. The residence requirement does not
apply to persons who were born and live in Greece and to some
ethnic Greeks abroad (e.g.: a second generation Greek migrant to
USA staying there). Greek Pontiaks first need to have their special
ethnic status recognised and then access the country for the
purpose of requesting Greek citizenship. A second case, under
specific provisions means that ethnic Greeks of Albanian
citizenship generally have no access to Greek citizenship.
The application for naturalisation is submitted to the authorities of the
town or village in which the foreigner lives or resides. In the case of a person
of Greek ethnic origin, resident abroad, the application is submitted to the
consular authority of their country of residence and it is then transmitted to
the Ministry of the Interior. Naturalisation takes place following a decision
of the Minister of the Interior. Ethnic Greek Pontiaks can get Greek
citizenship with a decision taken by the Secretary General of Region and not
from the Minister of the Interior.
Each naturalised person must be recorded in the Civil Register of the
municipality of residence after making a declaration of loyalty. People
applying from abroad will be recorded in the local Civil Register of the
Greek municipality they will mention in their application.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The decennial Population Census is the unique statistical source for
population stocks. The last Population Census was held on 18th March 2001
under the responsibility of the National Statistical Service of Greece (NSSG).
The census enumerated all nationals and non-nationals who were present on
the census day (de facto population) and all Greeks citizens registered in
municipal Civil Registers and living temporarily abroad (these are still part
of the de jure population even if the duration of stay abroad is indefinite).
443
T H E S I M
Data on the usually resident population by citizenship and by country of
birth is available at census time in 2001. There may be a problem in the
census enumeration of persons having a Greek background, resulting from
the possible misunderstanding or misreporting of the ethnic and migration
questions. For example, ethnic Greeks could have answered that they were
Greek irrespective of their citizenship or type of residence permission.
The NSSG estimates annually the total population based on census data,
recorded vital events and estimated net migration. However the proposed
figures do not included the basic distinction between nationals and nonnationals. Up to 1997, permit statistics allowed produce a distribution of the
foreign population by citizenship on the basis of the valid residence permits
(first permits issued the year before plus renewed permits) but the published
data were unreliable and not comparable in time. For recent years the data
extracted from residence permits’ files resulted in undercounting in
comparison with the census results and are therefore not valid1.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Until 2000, the NSSG proposed statistics on international migration based
on data on the residence permits provided by the Ministry of Public Order.
From 2001, with the new organisation of responsibilities, the NSSG should
compile statistics on the basis of residence permit data provided by both the
Ministry of Public Order and the Ministry of the Interior, in order to cover
all international migrants. This new data collection is not yet operational,
reflecting the difficulties faced by the Ministry of the Interior in the
implementation of the regularisation and the introduction of the new
decentralised procedure. In future it is expected that the combination of data
from the two above-mentioned Ministries will allow the production of
reliable and comparable statistics on international immigrants. These are
defined as foreigners entering Greece in the given year who have been
granted a first issue residence permit. Greek citizens will not be included.
Data from the Ministry of the Interior do not cover country of birth or
country of previous residence. Data on emigration will not be available
either for citizens or for foreigners.
1 Previously, data on the foreign population based on residence permits, were provided by the
Ministry of Interior, which should continue to do so. However it is not clear if the Ministry of
Public Order may provide data on ethnic Greeks with foreign citizenship and the other
categories of persons under its competence especially EEA citizens.
444
Country Report: Greece
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The Ministry of the Interior is the authority responsible for statistical data
on residence permits of third-country nationals legally residing in Greece
and the Ministry of Public Order is responsible for data on asylum seekers
granted permission, ethnic Greeks with foreign citizenship (mostly Albanian
citizens) and EEA citizens. As explained above there are separate databases
for every type of permit held by the two above-mentioned authorities.
Statistical data are different according to the two types of residence
permits. Data concerning residence permits for third-country nationals have
been available since July 2003 for a reference date or a reference period while
the data for other groups of foreigners are produced periodically for official
purposes only.
Data on permits (valid at a given date or granted in a reference period)
may be extracted according to one or more variables such as sex, age/date of
birth, citizenship, permit type and duration, change of reason/type, number
of dependent children, region of residence. This should respect the
requirements of the EU Regulation. However some information such as the
status of an expired permit under renewal, the order number of the permit
(first permit or renewal), the date of first legal entry are not recorded, and
thus some persons waiting for renewal of residence permits could not be
counted in the statistics.
Greece has not yet implemented the EU directive on long-term residence
for EU citizens and thus permit data for this category of foreigners are not
yet available. Data on special permits granted to ethnic Greeks with foreign
citizenship (almost all Albanian citizens) are not produced by the Ministry of
Public Order.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The authority responsible for processing asylum statistics is the Ministry
of Public Order (including its aliens-, security- and police sub-directorates).
Data on asylum inflows during a reference period, the number of
pending asylum applications on a reference date and selected information
on decisions during a reference period (number of Dublin clients by
citizenship, grants of refugee status by instance and citizenship, withdrawals
of refugee status by citizenship, and grants of subsidiary protection status by
instance and citizenship) are published, or there are plans to do so. Data are
available on a monthly basis, even though certain tables are provided on a
quarterly or annual basis. Other information requested in the EU Regulation
445
T H E S I M
on this topic (i.e. further types of data on asylum decisions) is not available
or not applicable.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
Greek statistics on acquisitions of citizenship refer to the calendar year
and are produced once a year. These statistics cover only the cases of
naturalisations directly granted by the Ministry of the Interior. Therefore,
statistics presumably include the naturalisations of persons living abroad
and exclude the naturalisations of some categories of persons living in
Greece like Greek Pontiaks granted at regional level and those persons
granted citizenship by the municipalities on grounds such as adoption or
legitimisation of minors.
Due to the decentralised nature of data collection the overall count will
be unreliable because of different procedures adopted by the regions for the
cases under their competence. It is not possible to provide annually detailed
tabulations by previous country of citizenship of naturalised persons.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Costas Kanellopoulos and the members of
the Greek EMN-NCP (KEPE), who coordinated the preparation of the
THESIM meeting, held in Athens on 5th November 2004, as well as the
collection of comments and corrections to this country report.
446
Country Report
Spain
Yves Breem and Xavier Thierry
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The resident population is registered in local population registers, the
Padrón. Since 1996, the legislation was modified, making it compulsory for
the 8108 municipalities to computerise their registers and for the National
Institute of Statistics under the Ministry of Economy and Finances (Instituto
Nacional de Estadistica, INE) to coordinate them, thus avoiding duplicates
(when someone is registered in several municipalities). This new system is
called Padrón Continuo because of its monthly updating and therefore
permanent nature.
Hence, the town councils manage their local Padrón and forward to the
INE the variations (incorporations, withdrawals and modifications of
addresses within the municipality or other individual characteristics)
occurred during the prior month. This exchange of information takes place
using interchange files, either directly by the Internet or through local
centres of the INE. As coordinators of local registers, INE compiles these
variations in a computerised database called ‘Coordination File of Local
Population Registers’ (Fichero de Coordinación de los Padrones municipales). In
principle, municipalities have to check if their Padrón reflects the real
composition of the resident population, but in fact the current management
system of local registers is quite recent and comparison with the 2001
Census showed some discrepancies.
The Padrón represents the de jure population. Everybody who resides in
Spain is obliged to register in the municipality in which he/she habitually
resides. Registration gives access to health insurance, schools, social
allowances and (for Spanish citizens only), the right to vote. No unique PIN
is attributed. People are identified through different personal numbers: ID
card Number (DNI for Spanish citizens over fourteen years of age), Foreign
Identity Number (NIE), Passport Number, and ID card Number of the
T H E S I M
country of citizenship for EEA citizens. In the case of a change of residence,
people are also identified through their family name. This can cause some
technical problems if an attempt is made to to avoid double counting. A
person can only be a resident of one municipality. Anyone who lives in
several municipalities shall, by law, be registered only in the one in which
he/she has spent more time during the year.
The registration of all foreigners is independent of their legal residence
status in Spain. To be allowed to register, foreigners should have a proof of
their residence in the municipality and their residence permit, or passport if
they haven’t one. Migrants in an illegal situation and asylum seekers may
also register themselves in the Padrón. The practical advantages linked to
this registration increase the number of self-declarations of residence. By a
new law coming into force at the end of 2003, third-country nationals who
do not have a permanent residence right have to attest their presence in the
municipality each two years. However this law does not apply to EEA
citizens and its consequences on the updating of the Padrón have not yet
been assessed.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
All international migrations of nationals and non-nationals should be
recorded and all people arriving in Spain must present themselves to their
local municipality to be registered. No intended duration of stay is
requested for registration as and ‘immigrant’.
A Spanish citizen leaving the country has to declare his/her change of
address at the Spanish Consulate abroad, which has to communicate this
information to the INE through the Foreign Ministry. Based on this
information, the Population Register for Spaniards residing abroad (Padrón
Espanol Residente Extranjeros, PERE) is kept by INE and connected with the
Padrón. The PERE includes most Spanish diplomats on mission abroad).
When someone records themselves in this PERE, INE communicates it to the
previous municipality and their record is removed from their local Padrón.
In case of return to Spain, they will automatically be deregistered from the
PERE after registration in the Padrón of the new municipality of residence.
No intended duration of absence is required for registration as an
‘emigrant’. Apart from diplomats, all Spanish citizens registered in the PERE
are no longer considered as part of the de jure population.
If a third-country citizen moves abroad, they must declare their change of
residence to the municipality of departure. There is a problem of undercoverage of foreigners who leave the country.
448
Country Report: Spain
The date of registration/deregistration (not the date of the event) is
recorded.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Directorate-General of the Police (Ministry of the Interior) is
responsible for the Central Register of Foreigners (Registro de Extranjeros
Residentes, ADEXTRA).
The ADEXTRA contains the applications for, and grants or refusals of,
residence permits, student permits and work permits. It also includes people
who are found illegally on the territory and who are submitted to expulsion.
A foreigner PIN (Numero de Identidad de Extranjeros) is attributed to all
foreigners. When the permit expires, the data are deleted from the database
even if the foreigner has applied for renewal of the permit. In fact
information available in the database relates to permits, not to persons.
In accordance with the Regimen General all non-EEA citizens need a
residence permit (autorización de residencia) to live in Spain for more than
three months:
ƒ A temporary residence permit allows a stay in Spain for a period up
to one year. This permit is attributed to foreigners recently entered
the country as well to those living illegally in the country and
thereafter regularised (including people who have had a residence
permit before). Usually renewals are pronounced for a length of two
years. However the total duration in the temporary stay should not
exceed five years.
ƒ A permanent residence permit is available to all foreigners who have
held a normal residence permit for a continuous period of five years.
However in the case of family reunification the newcomer could get
a permanent permit directly, if their spouse still holds one. A
permanent residence permit could be also issued as a first permit to
refugees and under certain conditions to foreigners born in Spain
who have just reached the age of eighteen years. It should be
renewed every five years.
Besides the general residence permit system, foreigners can also ask for
authorisation to stay for specific purposes:
ƒ A residency permit for reuniting families entitles foreigners residing
in Spain to apply for the Spanish residence of their close family
members. The applicant must have been legally resident in Spain for
at least one year and must have authorisation for another year.
ƒ Foreign students wishing to carry out studies or research in Spain
must apply for an authorisation to stay (Autorizacíon de Estancia por
449
T H E S I M
Estudios). The duration of the authorisation depends on the duration
of the studies (maximum one year). If the stay is less than six
months, only a student visa is necessary. Students who have
obtained a Spanish Student Residency Card can apply for the
corresponding stay visas and residence permit for their relatives to
enter and stay in Spain. There is no minimum period as the foreign
student is allowed to be joined by their family.
All applications must be made in person at the foreigners office (Oficina
de Extranjeros) or the national police station (Comísaria de Policía Nacional)
with a foreigners department in the city or district of stay. Renewal
applications must be made at least a month before the residence permit has
expired. Minors may have residence permits or simply be included on their
parent’s residence permit.
Apart from some exceptions (e.g. retirees) EEA nationals do not have to
obtain this type of residence permit. However they could ask for a document
named tarjeta de residencia (residence card) if it is necessary for them to attest
their residence in the country for practical purposes. Their self-declared
registration is carried out by the police.
A.4. Registration of asylum
The Office for Asylum and Refugee (OAR) of the Ministry of the Interior
keeps a database called Asylo. This database keeps all steps of the procedure,
including appeals, for each asylum applicant.
The asylum procedure is governed by Spain’s Refugee Law 5/1984, last
amended in 1994/1995. Asylum seekers may file applications with the
Ministry of the Interior’s Office for Asylum and Refuge (OAR), with the
police at the border or within the territory, or at Spanish diplomatic and
consular missions abroad. When applying, asylum seekers must submit
evidence of their identity and a ‘credible statement’ asserting persecution.
The OAR reviews all asylum applications for admissibility to the regular
determination procedure with the help of an opinion by the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
All admissible applications are forwarded to the Inter-Ministerial
Commission for Asylum and Refugee Status (CIAR), which issues a
decision, usually within six months of the filing of the application, based on
the information in the OAR file and the opinions provided by UNHCR and
various non-governmental organisations (NGOs). While awaiting a decision,
asylum seekers receive accommodation and meals and may apply for work
permits. If the Ministry of the Interior concurs with the CIAR assessment,
the decision becomes final.
450
Country Report: Spain
The OAR issues an identity document to approved applicants, making
them eligible for residency, work, and social benefits. In addition to UN
Refugee Convention status, Spain extends temporary protected status to
displaced persons who have fled their country of origin as a result of
political, religious, or ethnic conflict. Recipients of this status receive annual
residence permits for the duration of the conflict in the country of origin,
and are entitled to the same social benefits as recognised refugees. In
addition to this ‘displaced status’, a temporary residence permit may be
granted on humanitarian grounds or in case of mass influx.
Asylum seekers whose claims have been considered inadmissible or who
are rejected in the normal procedure may, within two months of notification,
appeal against the negative decision to the National High Court. These
appeals also do not immediately suspend expulsion orders, although
suspension is usually granted. A final appeal is possible before the Supreme
Court.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
The General Direction of Register and Notaries from Ministry of Justice is
responsible for all acquisitions of Spanish citizenship. The different types of
acquiring Spanish citizenship are a combination of the ius sanguinis and ius
soli legal bases. Another main principle is the renunciation of previous
citizenship, although there are several exceptions based on the cultural and
linguistic affinities between Spain and several central and southern
American countries.
Spanish citizenship may be granted on the grounds of birth-origin,
marriage, option (specific cases for those aged over eighteen years),
naturalisation and re-acquisition (by descent). Acquisition by birth is
recognised when a child is born to at least a Spanish parent or when a child
is born in Spain with at least one parent also born in Spain. Foreign spouses
of a Spanish citizen may apply for Spanish citizenship if the couple lives
together and if the foreigner partner has resided at least one year in Spain.
Foreigners over the age of eighteen may also apply for naturalisation if
they have resided in Spain (normally) for ten years, are of ‘good character’
and are sufficiently accustomed with the Spanish society, provided there is
no objection on the grounds of public policy or national interest. The
residence period requirement is reduced to five years for refugees; two years
when the applicants are Ibero-Americans, Andorrans, Philippinos/as,
Guinea Ecuadorians, Sephardic Jews or Portuguese and to one or two years
when the person has a special tie with Spain.
451
T H E S I M
The applications for all types of acquisition of Spanish citizenship take
place in the Civil Register of the residence of the applicant. The Department
for Citizenship is responsible for deciding on relevant applications and, in
case of appeals against negative decisions. Citizenship is granted by the
Ministry of Justice through an order which updates the information in the
Civil Register.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The official population figures are obtained from the Padrón and
extracted directly from INE’s database. The census (last carried out on 1st
November 2001) is used only to know the socio-economic characteristics of
the population. It has the basic objective of simultaneously collecting fresh
and broader information useful for statistical purposes.
The stock derived from the Padrón covers the de jure population. All
individuals (citizens and non-citizens, legal or illegal) whose place of
residence is registered in the Padrón are considered as part of the usual
population. In contrast with the UN recommendations, the definition used is
not where a person spends their daily period of rest, but where they live
(although this is usually the same thing).
Official population figures are published each year, with reference to 1st
January. The official figures are confirmed by the Consejo de Empadrónamiento
each 31st December.
Data on population by sex, date of birth, citizenship and country of birth
are available in the Joint Migration Questionnaire. However, large
discrepancies between the stock of non-nationals available for 2000-2003 in
various publications and databases have been detected. Note that the large
increase in the stock of non-nationals between 2002 and 2003 results from
improvements in the registration of foreigners in the Padrón.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Statistics are produced through the Variaciones Residenciales, which are
registered at the local level in the Padrón at each change of residence.
Statistics are produced directly by checking in INE’s database .
The flow statistics refer to new residents in the municipality and to new
residents abroad not to immigrants and emigrants. Due to the fact that
452
Country Report: Spain
registration in the Padrón does not record how long the person is going to
stay in the municipality or abroad, migration statistics are not based on
migrants as such (persons), but on the number of changes of residence
registered (cases). A person will be counted each time he/she changes their
place of residence. When the country of departure/destination is unknown,
changes of residence are not considered as international migration and are
not included in the flow statistics. These changes of residence are, however,
taken into account in the population stock. It is foreseen that incorporations
and withdrawals when the country of departure/destination is unknown,
will be included in the future.
The Statistics on changes of residence (Estadisticas des Variaciones
Residenciales, EVR) are published annually and include sex, date of birth,
place of birth, citizenship, country of previous and next residence.
Data on international immigration and emigration requested in the Joint
Questionnaire on International Migration Statistics are available but, as
mentioned earlier, do not comply with the UN recommendations.
Furthermore, emigration data published up to 2001 are incomparable with
the EVR of 2002-2003 because the figures on emigration come from Statistics
of Assisted Emigration (Estadística de Emigración Asistida del Ministerio de
Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales) and refer to assisted emigration of nationals only.
This break in the time series, resulting from the change in data source
resulted in a considerable increase in the published emigration figures.
Figures on inflows from individual countries of origin to Spain are lower
than data reported by partner countries in the case of Denmark, Germany
and Austria but they are higher in the case of Finland and Sweden. It is
worth noting that figures on flows from the Netherlands to Spain presented
by both countries are comparable. As regards data on emigration for 2002, in
many cases they are substantially lower than data reported by partner
countries.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
Since 2004, the Permanent Observatory of Immigration of the Secretariat
of State for Immigration and Emigration of the Ministry for Employment
and Social Affairs has been responsible for the statistical treatment of data
coming from the ADEXTRA sent by the Directorate-General of the Police
every three months.
Only the stock on foreigners with a valid residence permit, disaggregated
by length of validity, is published. Flows data are established in recent years
either by calculation of the difference between the stock between successive
dates or from estimates of the number of first permits issued. This latter
453
T H E S I M
method is possible because first permits are always valid for one year.
However, due to the removal of records of expired permits, it is not possible
to know if a new permit really is the first one. Data on residence permits
granted when a person changes immigration status and on valid long-term
residents are not available.
Due to the fact that minors do not necessarily hold residence permits, the
Permanent Observatory of Immigration also products data on scholars. Data
on foreign students staying at least six months in Spain (Autorizacíon de
Estancia por Estudios) are not integrated in the stock and flows statistics of the
Ministry of the Interior because they are not considered as residents.
Due to the fact that the possession of a residence permit is not
compulsory for registration in the Padrón, there is no link between issues of
residence permits and international migration statistics.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The Office for Asylum and Refuge under the Ministry of the Interior is
responsible for producing statistics on asylum from its database Asylo.
All asylum requests are counted, including those made at the borders
and manifestly unfounded applications. Statistics could be produced by case
or by persons (including children). All data required by the EU Regulation
are available and published: flows of asylum applicants, unaccompanied
minors, pending applications, grants and withdrawals of status,
inadmissible cases and Dublin cases. Repeat applications are currently
counted as first applications. It is not currently possible to obtain the number
of persons returned after a negative decision. Cohort data could be available.
As regards the number of asylum applicants, the various sources are
highly consistent. More inconsistencies were observed when dealing with
the statistics on decisions. The UNHCR and DG JLS present total numbers
that probably only relate to first instance decisions. In addition, differences
occur that are often due to the fact that authorities responsible for asylum
deliver provisional data to different international bodies at different dates.
In principle, it is assumed that all asylum seekers are registered in the
Padrón and are subsequently included in the immigration statistics (flows)
and population statistics (stocks). If a person leaves the country he or she
will be included in the emigration statistics and excluded from the stock
after declaring his/her departure. Persons who leave the country after a
negative asylum decision or before a decision has been taken are also
included in the emigration statistics, if they declare their departure.
454
Country Report: Spain
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
INE is responsible for publishing data on acquisitions of citizenship.
Persons regaining Spanish citizenship are not included in the statistics.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Ana Jurado Jimenez and Ana Padilla Gomez
from INE, who coordinated the preparation of the THESIM meeting, held in
Madrid on 18th January 2005, as well as the collection of comments and
corrections to this country report.
455
Country Report
France
Yves Breem and Xavier Thierry
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The only registration of the population is done through the social security
register of the National Old-Age Pension Fund (Caisse Nationale d’Assurance
Vieillesse, CNAV), which supervises a database called National Sickness
Insurance Inter-Scheme Register (Répertoire National Inter-régimes de
l’Assurance Maladie, RNIAM). This database covers all individuals born in
France or who have entered France in the past, whether they are the insured
or their dependents. Each individual is identified through a registration
number (Numéro d’Inscription au Répertoire, NIR) which allows a linkage
between data on individual benefits. Individuals are removed from the
RNIAM only in the case of death. This register is not currently considered as
fully reliable and the new annual census is expected to be a better source for
the resident population. Accordingly this register may not be considered as
a population register and there is no such register in France.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
French citizens leaving the country or returning from abroad do not have
to register their migrations. Emigrants may register at the French consulate
of their new country of residence but this procedure is not compulsory, so
only a fraction of the total number of emigrants is registered. A decree
concerning the creation of a Global Register of French Citizens Living
Abroad (Registre mondial des Français établis hors de France) has been recently
promulgated in order to facilitate the administrative formalities related to
this registration.
T H E S I M
There are no procedures to record departures of non-nationals. Legal
entries of third-country nationals are recorded through the issue of residence
permits.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Ministry of the Interior keeps a database entitled Management
Application for Records of Non-nationals in France (Application de Gestion des
Dossiers de Ressortissants Etrangers en France, AGDREF), which includes any
foreigner aged eighteen or over (age sixteen if intending to work) who is
living in France for more than three months. The AGDREF encompasses
legally resident non-nationals and rejected applicants who have been issued
a receipt for a residence permit application. This means that asylum seekers
and refugees are included in this database as well as in a specific register
kept by OFPRA (see below). Categories of people who are not required to
hold residence permits (mainly minors and EEA nationals since 2004) are
not covered.
In order to enter France to stay more than three months, every thirdcountry national needs a visa. Immigrants must apply for the residence
permit whilst abroad. Neither visa applications nor residence permit
requests are transferred to AGDREF and the link between visa and
immigration information is unclear. There is no operational means to
determine if a long-stay visa holder has actually entered France or if a shortstay visa holder has left the country before expiry of their visa. The situation
is further complicated by the fact that some residence permits are issued on
the basis of a short-stay visa.
Residence permits are issued in France by the Préfectures. Having arrived
in the country third-country nationals are required to undergo a medical
examination by the International Migration Office (Office des Migrations
Internationales, OMI, Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion).
The OMI issues a medical certificate that must be presented to the Préfecture.
This document is required (in theory) to issue the residence permit, except
for EEA citizens and their family members. An identification number is
given to each foreigner by the Ministry of the Interior. The information
collected during the processing of the residence permit application is
entered in the AGDREF database via the computer terminals of the
Préfectures. The information collected for the purpose of permit application
and issue (and on other events related to the non-national’s stay:
applications for family reunification, acquisition of French citizenship,
deportation procedures or death) is stocked in individual-level files that
provide a chronological record of the administrative trajectories of
458
Country Report: France
foreigners. The AGDREF file comprises all currently valid documents as
well as those that have expired, regardless of type and length of validity.
During the time the permit application is being processed, foreigners are
issued with a receipt for stay permit (récépissé de carte de séjour, RCS,) valid
for three months. It can be renewed as many times as necessary. In the event
of a positive decision, one can get either a temporary residence permit (carte
de séjour temporaire, CST) valid for one year maximum (depending on the
legal reason for admission: personal or family situation, employment and
self-employment, student, financially independent, researcher, artist…) or a
long-term residence permit (carte de résident) valid for then years. Foreigners
who have lived legally and continuously in France for five years with a CST
can request a carte de résident. This application can already be made after two
years in certain situations (family reunification, family ties which French
nationals).
In the case of death, acquisition of French citizenship, expiry of a permit,
etc, individuals are archived within the same AGDREF data file. However,
changes of citizenship and deaths (in particular those occurring abroad) are
incompletely registered. A foreigner whose permit has expired and is not
renewed is removed from the database after five years.
A.4. Registration of asylum
Asylum applications can be submitted at the border or within the
country. The procedure at the border corresponds to a procedure for
admission operated by the Ministry of the Interior. If the application at the
border is refused as being manifestly unfounded, the applicant is not
allowed to enter France. If the application at the border is accepted, the
asylum applicants receive an eight days safe-conduct permit that allows
them to apply for asylum under the responsibility of French Office for the
Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Office Français de Protection des
Réfugiés et Apatrides, OFPRA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
Asylum applicants (adults) have firstly to report to the Préfecture of their
place of residence. After a fingerprint check proving that the applicant has
not lodged multiple applications in France or in another EU MS, the
Préfecture issues a provisional residence permit (autorisation provisoire de
séjour, APS) valid for one month. During this stage, asylum seekers complete
and send their application form to OFPRA, the only responsible body for
registering and processing all requests for protection (Geneva Convention or
constitutional asylum as well as subsidiary or temporary protection). During
the asylum procedure the Préfecture will renew the APS by period of three
months as long as necessary. OFPRA determines on which ground the
459
T H E S I M
application can be examined. In the event of refusal and if applicants can
invoke new elements, they can ask for a review of their case by OFPRA.
Individuals whose refugee status is recognised are informed of this
decision by OFPRA and are thereafter authorised to collect their residence
permit from the Préfecture. This permit is a temporary residence permit
(CST) valid for one year (subsidiary or temporary protection) or a long-term
residence permit (CR) valid for ten years (refugee status arising from
application of the Geneva Convention or constitutional asylum). Long-term
residence permits are automatically renewable.
In the case of a negative decision, the applicant receives a request from
the Préfecture to leave the country. If this is not acted upon, a deportation
order is issued. The claimant can appeal against the OFPRA decision to the
Refugee Appeals Commission (Commission des Recours des Réfugiés). During
the appeal the decision of OFPRA is suspended (the foreigner is authorised
to stay in the country). If the decision of OFPRA is upheld, the claimant can
lodge a last appeal en Cassation (not suspensive).
There is no automatic link between AGDREF and the database kept by
OFPRA, although it is technically possible since the AGDREF number is
recorded in the OFPRA register.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
Two authorities are responsible for granting citizenship: the Ministry of
Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion (Sous-Direction des naturalisations)
and the Ministry of Justice (Direction de l’administration générale et de
l’Equipement).
There are several ways of obtaining French citizenship:
ƒ On grounds of birth and residence in France: children born in France
of non-national parents acquire it automatically at the age of
eighteen if they reside in France or have lived for at least five years
since the age of eleven (without any registration in this case of ius
soli). They can also claim it by declaration from the age of sixteen.
With their personal consent, French citizenship can be declared by
parents from minors aged thirteen. The condition of five years of
residence in France must always be satisfied.
ƒ By declaration on grounds of marriage: non-nationals married to a
French spouse can acquire citizenship after two years of marriage
(three years when length of residence in France is under one year)
with certain conditions related to the stability of the union and
degree of assimilation. A declaration can also be made for minors
460
Country Report: France
adopted by French citizenship or by anyone who has enjoyed
uninterrupted possession of de facto French status for ten years. The
declaration has to be done to the First instance court (Tribunal
d’Instance, Ministry of Justice). An appeal can be lodged with the
Tribunal de Grande Instance.
ƒ By acquisition by a decision of the authorities: anyone usually
resident in France for five years can request naturalisation. The
waiting period can be reduced to two years if the foreigner has
successfully completed two years in a French higher education
institution, or if by their ability and skill they had rendered, or
would render, great services to France (acquisition by decree). When
a parent acquires French citizenship, any children under the age of
eighteen of the beneficiary automatically become French if they are
usually resident with that parent (acquisition by collective effect). At
any age and with no waiting period, a person able to show that they
had once been a French citizen can be reincorporated into this
citizenship by decree, conditional on having retained clear ties with
France.
Persons wishing to be naturalised are required to contact the Préfecture of
their place of residence. Applicants are summoned to evaluate their
assimilation of the customs and practices of France and knowledge of
French. The application is transmitted to the Sub-Department of
Naturalisations together with the considered view, the latter taking the final
decision. If naturalisation is rejected or adjourned, an appeal can be lodged
with the Administrative Court of Nantes.
Whatever the mode of acquisition, the proof of French citizenship is the
certificate of French citizenship, issued at the First Instance Court. Since 1st of
September 1998, the issue of the certificate of citizenship is marked in the
margin of the birth registration record and/or the family record book, thus
avoiding an application for a new certificate of citizenship each time a
person needs to prove his or her French citizenship.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (Institut
National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, INSEE,) carries out the
census. The last traditional census took place in 1999 and was based on a
461
T H E S I M
universal coverage and a simultaneous count. As of 2004, a new method of
census has been introduced. The Redesigned Census of Population
(Recensement Rénové de la Population, also considered as ‘rolling census’) is a
continuous annual census, in five-year cycles (2004–2008, 2009–2013 …). It is
conducted on a sample of dwellings, located in geographical zones selected
randomly and enumerated completely. The continuous population census is
a sample-based survey: 70% of the population will have been enumerated at
the end of the first cycle. The census covers all persons who have or intend
to keep their usual residence in France (including the temporarily absent),
for a period of at least six months. Diplomats are not considered while
asylum applicants and illegal immigrants can be enumerated.
The population can be distributed either by citizenship, either by country
of birth or a combination of both to identify all immigrés according the
French definition of the term: an immigré is a person born as a foreigner
abroad and residing in the country. In France, for example, a person who
has acquired French nationality since arriving in France is therefore always
counted as an immigrant. Inversely, a person born as a French national
abroad is not an immigrant. Year of entry into France and country of
residence five years previously are also available.
In the 2001 DG JLS Annual Report, population by broad citizenship
groups is available for intercensal years between 1999 and 2004, based on the
number of foreigners (adults) holding a valid residence permit (these figures
are overestimated due to departures not reported in AGDREF files, see
below). Starting from 2004, by using the ‘rolling census’, the stock of
population will be available each year for year t–2 with an increased
reliability, disaggregated by sex, age, citizenship and country of birth.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
The Observatory of Statistics on Immigration and Integration
(Observatoire des statistiques sur l’immigration et l’intégration), under the aegis
of the High Council for Integration (Haut Conseil à l’Intégration, HCI) is
responsible for producing statistics on international migrations of nonnationals only, using several administrative sources related to foreigners
registration. There are no data on emigration (only assisted repatriations and
deportations from the country are counted).
Immigration data are coming from:
ƒ the Office des Migrations Internationales (OMI) for third-country
nationals;
ƒ the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless
Persons (OFPRA) for refugees;
462
Country Report: France
ƒ the Ministry of the Interior (AGDREF source) for EEA-citizens and
certain categories of third-country nationals who are not counted by
the OMI.
Up to 2003 the AGDREF source included EEA citizens. Since that is no
longer the case now, it will be replaced for statistical purposes based on the
‘rolling census’ data providing the year of entry among foreign-born
population.
Long-term immigration is referred to as ‘permanent immigration’ by the
HCI. This concept is based on a combination of the reasons for admission to
residence and the (official) length of the stay. All holders of permits of
durations less than one year are excluded (asylum seekers, seasonal and
temporary workers and so on).
The categories covered by this notion of permanent immigration are:
ƒ non-nationals authorised to stay permanently on employment
grounds - and consequently holding a residence permit valid for at
least one year (in the case of EEA-nationals an additional condition
applies: a non-national must give proof of a work contract of at least
one year, so a non-national who has a one-year permit but is
reported as having employment for a shorter period will not be
counted);
ƒ non-nationals holding a special personal and family situation
temporary residence permit;
ƒ spouses and minors benefiting from family reunification;
ƒ non-national family members of French nationals (spouses,
ascendants, descendants);
ƒ refugees and stateless persons;
ƒ non-nationals who are infirm, retired military personnel, recipients
of a work-related accident invalidity pension;
ƒ persons with sufficient financial resources to live in France without
working (visitor temporary residence permit).
The statistics are compiled by each of the data-collection agency and
transmitted to the Observatory once yearly in aggregate form. Statistics by
sex, year of birth and citizenship are potentially available. On the other
hand, not every source has variables indicating country of birth: it is
available in the data from the OFPRA and the Ministry of the Interior
(though as yet not used) but not in the OMI statistics. The country of
previous residence is not collected in any of these sources.
Measurement of immigration is not fully compliant with international
recommendations because of the exclusion of numerically large categories.
Foreigners with residence permits valid for one year are not considered as
permanent immigrants if they are students, academics or artists.
463
T H E S I M
Accordingly foreign inflows are estimated to be underestimated by about
25%.
Moreover the quality of the statistics is not fully satisfying. In one hand
the AGDREF migration statistics (compiled by the Ministry of the Interior)
do not include foreigners who obtained a permit of less than one year that
was renewed by a permit of one year or more (this shortcoming could be
easily overcome). In another hand, the OMI data are defective since nonnationals holding residence permits may not attend the medical check-up.
Beside, certain categories of foreigners obtain their permit before going for
the medical examination and in many cases report to the OMI only at the
time of renewing the permit. Thus a large discrepancy is apparent between
the OMI data and those of the Ministry of the Interior.
The availability of data along the lines requested in the EU Regulation is
very limited. The compilation of data from three different sources for
immigration renders problematic the elaboration of detailed statistics by sex,
age and citizenship. The data on immigration are broken down only by
citizenship and as explained above the information on EEA citizens is no
longer available. Moreover the mixture of the sources used does not
guarantee consistency: for instance the flows are counted starting from the
date of admission to legal residence, which depends on the administrative
source used: it will be the date of issue of residence permit for EEA citizens,
the issue of medical certificate for third-country nationals or the granting of
refugee status.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
By law in force since 2004, the Ministry of the Interior (Direction des
Libertés Publiques et des Affaires Juridiques) presents a statistical report to
Parliament each year. This report must contain data related to the new
residence permits issued, the stock of residence permits valid at 31st
December, and various elements on illegal immigration. The AGDREF
source is used.
Data on first issued permits are available by reason for issue, citizenship
and the length of validity. The récépissé de carte de séjour (RCS, receipt for stay
permit) are not included. Separate tables are used to distinguish between
permits valid for one year or less and permits valid for more than one year.
The stock of currently valid permits is broken down by citizenship and
length of validity (but not by reason), including receipt for residence permit
applications in order to take into account permit holder which renewal is ongoing. Consequently asylum seekers who hold a provisional document
(APS) are integrated. However, due to the absence of deregistration
464
Country Report: France
procedure during the period of validity, the stock of valid residence permits
do not provide a reliable estimate of the foreign resident population.
A table of permits renewed on the occasion of a change in immigration
ground status is also published. It is limited to renewals of one-year permits.
Figures on long-term residents could be potentially produced in future
by cross-tabulating the date of entry with the category of foreigners holding
a long term resident permit.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The OFPRA is responsible for compiling the asylum statistics. Its own
database is used.
The OFPRA produces various statistics called for in the EU Regulation:
ƒ number of asylum applications (specifying whether an initial
application or a review);
ƒ number of pending applications;
ƒ number of priority procedures;
ƒ number of appeals to the CRR (Refugee Appeal Commission);
ƒ number of decisions taken and their outcome (negative or positive
and whether granted in first instance or after appeal).
On a general basis, these statistics relate to adult asylum applicants
(metropolitan France), whatever the ground for application (subsidiary,
temporary protection, Conventional or constitutional status). Distribution by
citizenship is available. Since May 2002, the statistics of first-time applicants
and of the status granted include a new count of minors accompanying or
rejoining their parents and who are listed on their parents’ file. Conversely
unaccompanied minors, who can apply for asylum through a special
procedure, are not enumerated.
Data on the applications and decisions are published in the annual report
of the OFPRA. With respect to the number of applications, inconsistencies
are observed between the reports of OFPRA, DG JLS and Eurostat.
Paralleling this, the statistics on decisions published by DG JLS and OFPRA
differ slightly. The inconsistencies may be due to differences of
interpretation, i.e. including or excluding children, counting total
applications or only initial applications; but also to the fact that the
distinction between first instance and total decisions is unclear. Since 1999,
data on decisions taken in successive years are distributed by year of initial
asylum application (1999 cohort and subsequent ones) in the OFPRA report.
Asylums seekers are not included in the immigration flow statistics. They
are included when refugee status is granted and a residence permit is given.
These two categories are supposed to be included in the population stock
465
T H E S I M
(census) although coverage is not guaranteed. There is no data on
repatriations in case of rejection (emigration statistics do not exist at all).
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
The two authorities responsible for registering acquisition of citizenship
(Ministry of Employment, Labour and Solidarity: Department of Population
and Migration, Sub-Department of Naturalisations in one hand; Ministry of
Justice in another one) are producing a common annual statistical report.
Two main categories of acquisitions come under the responsibility of the
Sub-Department of Naturalisations for statistical purposes: acquisition by
decree (naturalisation and reincorporation) and acquisition by declaration
on grounds of marriage. The other acquisitions by declaration are the
responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and give rise to specific statistics.
Additionally, absent by definition from all statistics are the acquisitions
that occur automatically (minors reaching their eighteenth birthday, born in
France and resident for more than five years since age eleven). Their number
is estimated each year, as is the number of young people requesting a
certificate of French citizenship and basing this request on an automatic
acquisition. It should be noted that the statistics available in different
sources vary in coverage: sometimes they include acquisitions processed
abroad. They can also include minors benefiting from the acquisitions of
their parents (under the so-called ‘collective effect’).
The statistics are available by place of residence, place of birth, previous
citizenship, age, and length of stay or length of marriage depending on the
mode of acquisition. These characteristics will be available only for oddnumbered years for the acquisitions that are under the responsibility of the
Ministry of Justice.
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux (HCI), who
coordinated the preparation of the THESIM meeting held in Paris on 4th
January 2005. Thanks also to Catherine Borrel and Guy Desplanques
(INSEE) for comments and corrections to this country report.
466
Country Report
Ireland
Nicolas Perrin
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
There is no population register as such in Ireland. However, the Central
Records System (CRS) is an important element of registration of the
population and may be used for statistical purposes in the future. This
database is under the responsibility of the Department of Social and Family
Affairs.
The Central Records System (CRS) is a central database of personal data
on individuals, held on different systems within the Department of Social
and Family Affairs, together with income and social insurance contributions
data which are supplied by the Revenue Commissioners. Every person who
is the concern of one of these administrative bodies will be attributed a PIN
(Personal Public Service Number, PPSN). All basic demographic variables
are included, as well as the address of the individual.
The CRS is believed to have close to full population coverage, as almost
all individuals will have dealings with the tax or social welfare systems.
A.2. Registration of international migrations
Although there is currently no formal system of registration of
international migration, the CRS might be used in the future to ‘capture’
international migration. It should currently be recording all international
migrations of nationals and non-nationals. Data on new employment, a
potential indicator of whether new registrants are staying in Ireland, are
available from the Revenue Commissioners. There are restrictions on nonEU15 citizens claiming certain types of social benefits, so data from social
welfare payment systems for immigrants from the new Member States are
probably limited. The information collected on registration includes
citizenship, so non-nationals are identifiable in the new registrations. Most
T H E S I M
non-Irish migrants have arrived since 1997 and the quality of citizenship
data is now good, but data collected up to 1997 are less reliable, thus
affecting the time series on the population stock by citizenship. Asylum
seekers can be identified in payment systems, since even those paid by direct
provision are paid through social welfare schemes. Asylum seekers are
required to register for PPSN, although information on migration status is
not collected on registration and thus is not recorded in the CRS. All
available data may be disaggregated by sex and age.
New records are added to the CRS when new PPSN are issued by the
Department of Social and Family Affairs. Personal data on CRS are
continuously updated from the most recent and reliable source available for
an individual.
In practice there is currently no procedure for deregistration.
A.3. Registration of Aliens
The Aliens Registration Office in the Department of Justice, Equality and
Law Reform is responsible for the registration of foreigners. The records of
residence permits granted are computerized since 1992. All non-EEA
citizens having been granted a residence permit and residing legally in
Ireland are registered in the database.
Every third-country national who wants to reside in Ireland more than
three months must have a significant purpose of entry among the following
ones:
ƒ Employment: before a non-EEA citizen can take up an employment,
the prospective employer must obtain a work-permit in respect of
that person.
ƒ Self-employment: When a non-EEA citizen proposes to establish
himself or herself as self-employed, it is necessary to apply for the
Minister for business.
ƒ Study: The primary concerns are whether the applicant is coming for
a bona fide course of study, whether the fees have been paid in
advance, whether the applicant has sufficient funds and whether
there is a strong likelihood that he or she will return when the course
of study is completed.
ƒ Family re-unification: There is no general policy of restriction in
relation to family reunion if the family members are not subject to a
visa requirement. In the case of visa-required family members of
non-EEA national workers, the reunification is possible after twelve
months of stay if the migrant has been offered a contract for a further
twelve months (three months for family members of workers in
468
Country Report: Ireland
certain specified high-skill areas). Family re-unification could be also
applied when aliens are parents of an Irish citizen.
Every third-country national who wish to stay in Ireland more than three
months must obtain a ‘permission to remain’ and have to register to the
Aliens Registration Office. This permission is a temporary residence permit
valid up to one year.
The following categories of persons may apply for long-term residence
permit:
ƒ Spouses of Irish citizens can apply for a residence permission for up
to five years.
ƒ Persons who have been legally resident in Ireland for over five years
may apply for a permission to remain for up to five years.
ƒ Persons who have been legally resident for over ten years may apply
for an unlimited residence ‘permission’.
Passports are checked at the border, where a specific ‘interface’ allows to
border guards direct access to most of the databases on foreigners. These
databases are: the Aliens Registration System; the Office of the Refugee
Applications Commissioner; the information system on work permits of the
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; the information system
on visas of the Department of Foreign Affairs; the database of the
Department of Social and Family Affairs. For non-EEA citizens, their border
crossing is recorded in the Aliens Registration System and they are required
to register within three months of arrival with their local Aliens Registration
Office. As a consequence of the border crossing controls, the non-national is
already in the system when he/she registers locally. They must produce a
passport and supply biographical and address details in an ‘Aliens
Registration Form – First Application for Registration / Permission to
Remain’. This standard form covers entry to the countries for all purposes,
whether it is a holiday visit or a stay for employment or self-employment,
study, retirement or any other reason. The Registration Officer issues a
registration certificate, now in the form of a card similar to a credit card,
which includes all information required on the individual, including
biometric data and (it is anticipated) soon to include fingerprints. There is no
registration of exits at the border. Emigrants with residence permits do not
have to declare their exits or give back their permit when leaving the
country. However, three months after the end of validity of a residence
permit, the file is ‘locked’ or inactivated.
EEA citizens may apply to the local Aliens Registration Officer for a
residence permit for personal reasons, in the same way. This residence
permit, once issued, is valid for five years and is renewable. However, as
this type of permit is no longer compulsory for EEA citizens in order to stay
469
T H E S I M
in Ireland, the number of permits issued to EEA citizens is now rather
limited (about 500 annually).
A.4. Registration of asylum
The Refugee Applications Commissioner, appointed by the Ministry of
Justice, Equality and Law Reform is in charge of the main database on the
asylum process. The legal basis of the Irish asylum procedure consists of the
Geneva Convention, the Refugee Act 1996, as amended by the Immigration
Act 1999, the Illegal (Trafficking) Act, 2000 and the Immigration Act, 2003.
Asylum requests have to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice. The
application is processed by The Office of the Refugee Applications
Commissioner processes the application. Following an initial interview, their
fingerprints and photographs are taken, after which a questionnaire is filled
in. Then the applicant receives a temporary residence permit and an
appointment is made for another interview. On the basis of the interview,
the Refugee Applications Commissioner will draw up a written and
motivated statement with a recommendation for the Minister of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform, concerning the acceptance or rejection of the
asylum request.
An accelerated procedure does not really exist, but the Refugee
Applications Commission may give priority to certain types of applications
when it appears that:
ƒ the application has to be taken up by another state as arranged by
the Dublin Convention;
ƒ the application is considered to be manifestly unfounded;
ƒ the applicant comes from a safe country of origin.
In other cases the asylum request will be processed under the normal
procedure.
On the basis of the recommendation of the Refugee Applications
Commissioner, the first instance decision is made by the Minister of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform. In general, the Minister has no power to overturn
positive recommendations that refugee status be granted, except where
national security or public policy reasons may apply. In the normal
procedure this decision may be:
ƒ positive – the applicant is granted Geneva Convention status with a
permanent residence permit;
ƒ negative - because the application is withdrawn or is deemed to be
withdrawn (without possibility to appeal);
ƒ negative - following substantive consideration (with the possibility
of appeal).
470
Country Report: Ireland
If the final decision is negative, the applicant is ordered to leave the
country. At the discretion of the Minister, refused refugees may be allowed
to stay temporarily with the status ‘leave to remain’. This status is granted
for humanitarian or other compelling reasons. The issuance of a ‘leave to
remain’ may appear as a sort of subsidiary protection. Apart from the
asylum procedure there is a possibility to grant temporary protection for a
specified period of time to a group of aliens in case of a mass influx of
displaced persons.
Appeals against a negative decision on the application have to be made
at the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal deals with three types of
appeals: substantive, manifestly unfounded and Dublin Convention. In
substantive appeal cases, applicants have fifteen working days to complete
and lodge the Notice of Appeal. These applicants have the option of an oral
hearing, which they must request on the Notice of Appeal Form. In
manifestly unfounded appeal cases, applicants have ten working days to
complete and lodge the Notice of Appeal. No oral hearing is afforded to
these applicants. Finally, in Dublin Convention appeal cases, applicants
have five working days to complete and lodge the appeal, without the
choice of an oral hearing. Further appeals are not possible.
As a consequence of the EU directive on subsidiary protection, Ireland
will have to create real subsidiary protection. In order to do so, the
competence of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the competence
of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal will be extended in order to cover the
procedure of subsidiary protection.
A.5. Registration of acquisition of citizenship
The main database on acquisition of citizenship in Ireland is the
‘Citizenship database’ of the Immigration Section (Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform).
Acquisition of citizenship is based upon the Irish Nationality and
Citizenship acts and regulations established from 1956 to 2004. The most
recent changes come from a referendum held in June 2004 which repealed
the principle of ius soli as the only condition for automatically granting Irish
citizenship to children born in Ireland. From 1st January 2005 Irish
citizenship may be acquired by birth, application (descent or marriage) and
naturalisation, as follows.
First, Irish citizenship by birth is the right of:
ƒ any child born in Ireland, provided that at least one of the parents
has been legally resident in the country for three of the four years
471
T H E S I M
preceding the child’s birth (excluding periods for education or
asylum procedure);
ƒ any child born outside Ireland to a father or a mother born in
Ireland.
Irish citizenship may be acquired by application through an Irish born
grandparent to:
ƒ any child born outside Ireland, if at least one of the parents is an
Irish citizen born outside Ireland and if the applicant has at least one
Irish born grandparent, through his/her birth’s registration in the
Foreign Births Register (FBR). Since 1st July 1986 a person registered
in the FBR after 1986 is considered to be an Irish citizen only from
the date of the registration, therefore their children are entitled
citizenship only if born after his/her registration. Persons registered
before July 1986 are considered Irish citizens either from the date the
original Citizenship Act came into force, i.e. 17th July 1956, or their
date of birth, whichever is later; thus only children born after 17th
July 1956 can claim citizenship in such cases.
Irish citizenship may also be acquired by application based on marriage
to an Irish citizen, to:
ƒ the spouse of an Irish citizen, who declares acceptance of Irish
citizenship at least three years after the marriage to the Irish spouse
or attainment of Irish citizenship by the spouse, provided the
marriage is still lasting. This modality was valid, under several
conditions, for a transition period from 30th November 2002 to 30th
November 2005. Since this transition period expired it is necessary to
apply for a certificate of naturalisation based on marriage to an Irish
citizen, and subject to a number of conditions, including residency in
Ireland.
As a last modality, Irish citizenship is granted at the discretion of the
Ministry of Justice by naturalisation to:
ƒ any non-Irish national legally resident in Ireland who has been
legally resident in the country for a cumulative period of four years
out of eight and continuously in the year before application
(excluding periods for education or asylum procedure). The
applicant must provide one year’s prior notification of their intention
to apply and show proof of his/her intention to reside in Ireland
after naturalisation. There may be, however, exceptions for special
reasons.
Irish law recognises dual citizenship and does not require applicants to
renounce any other citizenship held at the time of application. Applicants
472
Country Report: Ireland
should however always clarify the position governing the adoption of a
second citizenship with the authorities of their other country of citizenship.
B. Producing statistics requested by the EU Regulation
B.1. Statistics on the population with usual residence in the
country
The two main sources on the resident population are the Census and the
Quarterly National Household Survey (QNHS).
Traditional censuses take place every five years. The last Census was
conducted on Sunday 28th April 2002 by the Central Statistical Office (CSO).
The Census relates to the de facto population, i.e. the population present
within the boundaries of the Republic or Ireland on the night of 28th April
2002 (including visitors). A limited number of questions were asked in
respect of usual residents who were temporarily absent from their
household on census night (for less than three months).
The QNHS also organised by the CSO, is a large-scale, nationwide survey
of households in Ireland. 39,000 households are interviewed each quarter
(3000 each week). The QNHS only covers nationals and foreigners private
households and ignores around 50 % of asylum seeking immigrants living in
non-private accommodation. This survey began in September 1997,
replacing the annual ‘April Labour Force Survey’ (LFS).
The Census provides a lot of statistics concerning different population
stocks:
ƒ Population enumerated at the moment of the Census, whatever their
usual place of residence;
ƒ Usual resident population (including temporary absent);
ƒ Persons usually resident and present in the State on census night.
Census’ tabulations concern predominantly persons aged one year and
over usually resident and present in the country on Census night. The
official total population figure includes only persons who have their usual
residence in the country.
Thanks to a specific question, the population already in the country one
year prior to the census can be calculated, as well as population who has
lived outside Ireland for a continuous period of one year or more (persons
who have already been long-term migrants).
For inter-censal years, stocks figures for the total population are updated
according to the number of births, deaths and estimated net migration
provided by the QNHS. Population by citizenship or place of birth are
473
T H E S I M
produced using results from the QNHS only. Since different methodologies
are used to estimate the total population and the foreign population, the
resulting figures are not strictly comparable.
The estimated crude number of inhabitants is available each mid-April
but not by sex, age, etc. Complete data productions on stocks are only
available on census years (every five years). Sex, age, citizenship and
mother’s place of residence at the time of birth are available, but only on
census years. Estimations may be produce for inter-censal years using
QNHS, but the confidence intervals do not allow publish detailed categories
(single age groups, detailed citizenship…). Data from QNHS are available
only for selected countries of citizenship and countries of birth (Ireland,
United Kingdom, United States and an aggregate of the European Union
countries) due to high standard error. Figures on the total non-national stock
available in various different sources may not be consistent. Following the
census, the sampling schema of the QNHS was reconsidered and all related
data have now been revised.
B.2 Statistics on international migrations
Data on international migration flows are published by the (CSO) using
the QNHS. Other migration indicators are used to assess the reliability of the
QNHS. These include:
ƒ The continuous Country of Residence Inquiry of passengers,
conducted at airports and seaports;
ƒ The Register of Electors;
ƒ The Child Benefit Scheme;
ƒ The number of visas granted;
ƒ The number of work permits issued/renewed;
ƒ The number of asylum applications;
ƒ Central Records System.
However, the CSO has never modified estimates based on the QNHS
because of the evolution of those complementary indicators.
The key question used to identify people entering the country is the
following one: “Where did you live on April 30, year n-1 ?” An additional
question is asked on the date of immigration “In what year did you take up
residence in Ireland? Please answer latest year if more than once”. The key
question used to identify people leaving the country is asked as following to
the present member of the family dwelling: “Is there anyone who usually
lived in this household on April 30, year n-1 now living abroad?”
This type of survey approach yields underestimates of outward flows
since, when complete households emigrate, there is no-one left behind to
474
Country Report: Ireland
supply the necessary information to interviewers. However, the CSO doesn’t
consider that emigration of complete households is of particular significance
in the context of Irish emigration movements. There is no question about the
duration of the immigration/emigration within the survey. As a
consequence, even if the time constraints stipulated by the UN
recommendations for long-term migrations are considered as respected by
some publications, statistics on flows for Ireland do not follow UN
recommendations for long-term migrations. Some short-term migrants are
included within the annual immigration flows (immigrants who arrived
after 30th April of the previous year, who will leave before the one-year
limit) and the annual emigration flows (emigrants having left the country
after 30th April of previous year who will come back before the one-year
limit).
Although the QNHS provides quarterly results, statistics on migrations
flows are published annually only. The migration flows relate in fact to the
twelve months to mid-April of the corresponding years. Using data from the
Quarterly National Household Survey it is possible to determine emigrants,
by sex, age, country of destination and date of emigration (month of
departure). Data on immigrants are available by citizenship, age, sex,
country of birth, year of immigration and country of previous residence.
Data on international migration requested in the Joint Questionnaire on
International Migration Statistics are available on a limited basis.
Immigration and emigration data by country of previous/next residence are
available for a few categories only (in 2002 for the United Kingdom, the
United States and the European Union total). The same categories, and
Ireland, are distinguished in 2002 in the case of immigration data by
citizenship. In addition, data on immigration by citizenship are broken
down by different age groups to those requested (0-14, 15-24, 25-44, 45-64,
65+). Emigration data are not disaggregated by citizenship. The main reason
for this limited number of cross-tabulation is that the sample size of the
QNHS does not allow produce reliable estimates by detailed categories.
B.3. Statistics on residence permits
The main database on residence permits in Ireland is the computerised
registration system on all non-EEA citizens of the Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform and the Border Guards’ interface.
Currently, few publications are produced about residence permits
granted and little information from the computerised registration system on
all non-EEA citizens has been found in published reports.
475
T H E S I M
Nonetheless, citizenship, date of birth, place of birth, sex, date of entry
and address of last residence outside Ireland are recorded. Even if there are
currently no statistical data on residence permits, Ireland should, in future,
be able to produce the data requested by the EU Regulation. However, the
identifiable data in the database on reasons for migration do not comply
with EU request.
B.4. Statistics on asylum seekers
The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) provides
asylum statistics for Ireland.
Data required by the Regulation are available on a monthly basis and are
already published or may be produced on request. No remarkable
differences have been observed between different international databases
and the national database.
Since migration statistics are produced using a survey (QNHS) that does
not distinguish between asylum seekers, refugees or other foreigners,
asylum seekers should be included in immigration and emigration statistics.
The same applies for stocks, since stock figures are produced using two
sources (the QNHS and the census) that do not distinguish asylum seekers,
refugees or other foreigners.
B.5. Statistics on acquisitions of citizenship
Statistics on all acquisitions of citizenship are published by the CSO using
data from the Citizenship database (Department of Justice).
Ackowledgements
Particular thanks are due to Gerard Hughes from EMN-NCP (Economic
and Social Research Institute), who coordinated the preparation of the
THESIM meeting held in Dublin on 11th January 2005. Thanks also to Helen
Cahill (CSO) for comments and corrections to this country report.
476
Country Report
Italy
Giambattista Cantisani and Valeria Greco
A. Administrative sources and procedures
A.1. Registration of the resident population
The resident population in Italy is recorded in the Register of the
Resident Population (Anagrafe della Popolazione Residente), which is hosted
locally for those usually resident in the municipality. A centralised
population register does not exist but there are plans to develop (at some
point in the future) a limited centralised database named Indice Nazionale
delle Anagrafi1. For the past fifteen years each Italian municipality has held a
register named Register of Italian Citizens residing abroad (Anagrafe degli
italiani residenti all’estero, AIRE). Both registers are linked at local level and
the AIRE includes all Italian citizens living abroad for more than one year.
The Anagrafe is updated by each municipality through the registration of
vital events, marriages, migrations and change of address2 and to some
extent the same applies to AIRE (see below). The Central Direction of
Demographic Services, under the Ministry of the Interior, is responsible for
the registration of the resident population, while the provincial prefectures
are responsible for coordination between municipalities and the central
direction.
The Anagrafe includes citizens and foreigners who are usually resident in
the municipality. Each AIRE includes citizens who have been living abroad
Indice Nazionale delle Anagrafi - Sistema di Accesso ed Interscambio Anagrafico, i.e. National Index
of Population Registers – System to connect and exchange demographic information of
population registers), a national project aiming at connecting registers and exchanging data
through the demographic information of Anagrafe in order to provide more efficient services to
the public. Under this initiative, the basic demographic information of the resident population
will depend everywhere on the changes undertaken at the Anagrafe.
2 Name, relationship to reference person, sex, date of birth, place of birth, marital status,
citizenship, educational qualification and economic activity are recorded for each person.
Educational qualification and occupation are infrequently updated.
1
T H E S I M
for more than one year and who were previously resident in the
municipality.
The registration of Italian citizens in a given municipality is based on the
centre of their own interest – for family, work or other reasons important to
the individual. The individual’s choice of their place of registration is often
governed by access to financial and other advantages, such as lower taxation
for possession of primary habitation or lower insurance rates.
Since 1989, foreigners need to hold a residence permit for at least six
months in order to be registered in the Anagrafe of the municipality of
intended residence. For both citizens and foreigners this inscription is
compulsory, although there is no fine for omission. It must be renewed each
year. After registration the applicant may request an ID card, which is
identical for both Italian citizens and foreigners.
It may happen that some persons are registered in different
municipalities. This may happen in the case of the case of foreigners who are
registered, apparently under two different names because of the inversion of
the first and second name. In general, the population registered at the
Anagrafe is over-counted, which can work in the interest of the
municipalities because of the possible allocation of public benefits, elections
and local laws that are connected by law to the size of the municipality. This
has been observed most frequently in municipalities where the demographi