Asylum Report 2023

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Recognition rates at higher instances for specific nationalities

Overall, the Top 20 nationalities receiving the most decisions at second or higher instances

overlapped with those receiving most first instance decisions, with just four exceptions:

nationals of The Gambia, Iran, Russia and Senegal. However, nearly all of these four countries

of origin (except for The Gambia) featured among the Top 30 citizenships with most decisions

issued at first instance.

Among the Top 20 nationalities which received the most decisions at second or higher

instances, Syrians (76%) had the highest recognition rate in 2022 (see Figure 28), followed by

Ukrainians (62%). Other groups with recognition rates above the overall EU+ average included

nationals of Mali (40%), Iran (39%), Afghanistan (31%), Somalia (29%) and Türkiye (25%).

Syrians and Ukrainians had the highest recognition rates at

second or higher instances

Figure 28. Recognition rates for the Top 20 nationalities with the most decisions issued in

EU+ countries, 2022

Note: These 20 nationalities received the highest number of decisions at second or higher instances in

EU+ countries in 2022. They are ordered (from the left to the right side) in terms of the number of decisions

received.

Source: Eurostat [migr_asydcfsta] as of 13 April 2023.

For the remainder of the Top 20 nationalities, fewer than one-quarter of decisions issued at

second or higher instances granted international protection. Recognition rates were especially

low for Georgians (2%), Albanians (4%), Colombians (4%) and Gambians (6%). All these

nationalities had low recognition rates also at first instance in 2022.

For one-half of the Top 20 nationalities, recognition rates at second or higher instances were

similar to those at first instance, and for few of them - Nigerians, Pakistanis and Senegalese -

there was no difference between recognition rates at the two decision-making instances (see

Figure 28). While only one of the Top 20 nationalities received higher recognition rates in

appeals than at first instance (Bangladeshis), for several of them - such as Somalis, Malians,

Ukrainians, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, Guineans, Turks, Russians and Congolese (DR) -

250

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

recognition rates at second or higher instances were significantly lower compared to those at

first instance, the gap varying between 28 percentage points (for Somalis) and 9 percentage

points (for nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

Outside the Top 20 nationalities receiving decisions, recognition rates at higher instances

were high for Yemenis (71%), Belarusians (49%), Eritreans (39%) and Sudanese (35%).^lxi At the

other end of the spectrum were nationals of India (1%), North Macedonia (1%), Moldova (1%),

Serbia (2%), Comoros (2%), Haiti (3%), Armenia (4%), Ghana (5%) and Tunisia (6%). As was the

case at first instance, low recognition rates partially coincided with countries exempt from visa

requirements to enter the EU (for example applicants from North Macedonia, Moldova and

Serbia).

4.14.2. Building perspectives: Legal status and family

reunification

4.14.2.1. National forms of protection and regularisation measures

Several countries provided national forms of protection to persons fleeing

Ukraine prior to the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, and

continued to do so for some Ukrainian citizens who did not fall under the

scope of the Council Implementing Decision.¹⁰⁵⁸ In parallel, some

EU+ countries continued with initiatives which offered a right to stay to former

applicants who could not be returned and had reached a certain level of

integration.

The Finnish Ministry of the Interior published a report on potential solutions for people who

had resided in the country for a long period without having the legal right to residence,

including rejected applicants for international protection who could not be returned to their

country of origin.¹⁰⁵⁹ The same project investigated the possibility of issuing a residence

permit and an alien’s passport to applicants whose lack of a valid travel document is the sole

impediment to granting the residence permit. The aim of these investigations was to identify

possibilities to prevent social exclusion and the emergence of a parallel society.

In Germany, the draft of the Second Law for the Introduction of a Right of Opportunity to Stay

was presented and debated in the parliament. Among other objectives, the law would end the

accumulation of tolerated stay periods (Kettenduldung), which would no longer be counted

towards residence rights.¹⁰⁶⁰

The Irish government launched a scheme with a strand for undocumented migrants and

another for applicants for international protection. Asylum seekers who have been in the

asylum procedure for at least 2 years can apply for unrestricted access to the labour market

and a pathway to Irish citizenship. They can continue with the asylum procedure in parallel

with the regularisation process. The scheme was open for 6 months between February and

August 2022.¹⁰⁶¹

A report published in December 2021 by the Federation Red Acoge highlighted that Spanish

Immigration Law makes citizenship conditional to a set of criteria which are very difficult to

^lxi Only nationalities with more than 1,000 decisions issued in 2022 were considered.

251

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

meet for migrants, thus leaving many of them in a situation of social exclusion. With the aim of

promoting a people’s legislative initiative to regularise 500,000 persons by collecting

500,000 signatures, a group of organisations (including a political party) joined to form the

platform “EsencialES”. In December 2022, the campaign reached 700,000 signatures that

were submitted to the Office for the Electoral Roll in order to start the parliamentary

procedure. A gathering in front of the Congress was also organised by the Platform

EsencialES, with the aim of celebrating the great support received for this Popular Legislative

Initiative. The parliamentary procedure foresees a maximum of 6 months to analyse the

popular initiative and to submit it to the congress for its consideration.¹⁰⁶²

Some other countries, like Italy and Malta, amended existing procedures for granting national

forms of protection, while in the Netherlands, some cases needed to be re-assessed, following

clarifications about the criteria for qualifying for a special residence permit.

In Poland, changes were made to issuing humanitarian visas and humanitarian stays for

citizens of Belarus. The requirements were eased for those with a visa which was about to

expire or those who had fled the regime to Ukraine and then entered Poland through a

special procedure.¹⁰⁶³

The Italian Ministry of the Interior published a new circular in January 2022 which clarified the

connection between the special protection status (a national form of protection) and the

Dublin procedure (see Section 4.2), as well as subsequent applications. For example, it

addressed that special protection cannot be assessed merely on the basis of documentation

attached to a subsequent application; the applicant always must be heard.¹⁰⁶⁴

The Supreme Court of Cassation provided additional guidance for the assessment of special

protection and consolidated its judgments from 2021. The court confirmed that certified

attendance in an Italian language course or a fixed-term employment contract should be

considered signs of serious intention to integrate.¹⁰⁶⁵ The court followed the same reasoning

and sent back cases due to a lack of the appropriate assessment of the applicants’ level of

integration, for example in the case of a Gambian applicant.

Medical conditions are another factor that courts assessed for granting special protection. The

Tribunal of Bari granted this form of protection to a Pakistani citizen suffering from serious

psychiatric problems.

The Spanish Supreme Court established that national authorities are obliged to assess a

request for residence on humanitarian grounds within the asylum procedure, if this is

requested by the applicant. Authorities should have a proactive approach for applicants with

vulnerabilities and assess the option to provide humanitarian protection, even when there is

no evident request from the applicant.

The International Protection Act was amended in Malta and - amongst other provisions - it

modified the Temporary Humanitarian Protection procedure, which is a national form of

protection. A new provision allows the International Protection Agency to revoke, end or

refuse to renew this status when it is established that the person did not originally meet the

criteria for it. The decision to not grant international protection but grant Temporary

Humanitarian Protection can be appealed.¹⁰⁶⁶ While welcoming the legislative changes, MOAS

noted grey zones in the implementation of the laws and regulations on Temporary

Humanitarian Protection that would need to be clarified.¹⁰⁶⁷

252

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In the Netherlands, the final regulation implemented a children’s pardon (kinderpardon) that

allowed a certain group of rejected minor applicants and their family members to request a

residence permit before 25 February 2019.¹⁰⁶⁸ The IND re-assessed approximately 30 files in

2022, following a confirmation from the Minister for Migration that in some cases a permit can

be granted, even though an asylum application was not submitted on behalf of the

children.¹⁰⁶⁹ The Dutch Council of State provided guidance on the assessment of these

requests in two cases, noting that the authorities can assess the behaviour of the family

member when deciding on the application. However, when this element is held against the

child, courts have a wider scope for reviewing the cases on appeal.

In June 2022, the Council of State in the Netherlands ruled that there are three possible

situations for unaccompanied minors who do not qualify for an asylum permit:

There is adequate reception in the county of return and a return decision is issued;

ii)

There is no adequate reception and the unaccompanied minor must be granted a

residence permit on national grounds; or

iii) Further research is needed. In this situation, the unaccompanied minor retains lawful

residence on the basis of Article 8, preamble and under f, Aliens Act. The investigation

can lead to two conclusions: either there is adequate reception so that a return

decision can be issued, or there is no adequate reception and the unaccompanied

minor receives a residence permit on national grounds. The unaccompanied minor can

appeal the decision stating that further research is needed. The Council of State

further rules that the fact that the applicant is no longer a minor does not mean that the

Secretary of State can refrain from investigating whether they should have been

granted a permit based on national grounds.

The Finnish Supreme Court analysed whether a rejected applicant for international protection,

who submitted false information during the asylum procedure and founded a family in the

meantime, could still be given a residence permit based on family ties. While in one of the

cases the court confirmed that the reasons for rejecting the residence permit application were

more weighty than reasons for the protection of family life and the best interests of the child,

in the other, it came to the opposite conclusion. In the first case, the court underlined that

attempts to evade law had been long-lasting and continuous until requesting the residence

permit, while in the second case, the applicant’s evasion of the rules focused only on a certain

period, dating before 2016.

PICUM published a report on regularisation mechanisms and programmes, citing examples of

regularisation processes involving former applicants for international protection.¹⁰⁷⁰

4.14.2.2. Review, cessation and revocation of international protection

International protection status ceases in circumstances when the

status is no longer necessary or justified. It may also be revoked when

the person should have been excluded from international protection

earlier, when the status was obtained through misrepresenting or

omitting facts, or when the beneficiary is considered to be a danger to

the security of the state or the community.

253

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Legislative changes were initiated in Malta, where amendments to the International Protection

Act adjusted the criteria for exclusion from subsidiary protection status and the right to appeal

in that case.¹⁰⁷¹

NOAS observed delays in status reviews, often because authorities were looking into

potential fraud.¹⁰⁷² Amendments to the Immigration Act would allow authorities to expulse

refugees without first making a decision on the cessation of the status, when the person has

been convicted and sentenced for a crime that is punishable by 2 or more years of prison.¹⁰⁷³

UNHCR underlined that committing a serious crime is not a reason for cessation under the

Geneva Convention, and cessation reasons should be differentiated from the termination of

refugee status. The organisation assessed that “(t)he proposed parameters fall short of the

required analysis of the degree of seriousness of a crime that would constitute a danger to the

security of the country or a danger to the community”.¹⁰⁷⁴

Similar amendments were proposed in Denmark. Any foreigner who is sentenced to an

unconditional prison sentence would be deported, regardless of the length of stay in the

country. UNHCR regretted that the proposal was not sufficiently detailed to assess Denmark’s

compliance with international obligations and urged the Danish government to give special

consideration to beneficiaries of international protection.¹⁰⁷⁵

In Germany, as of January 2023, the Act on the Acceleration of Asylum Court Proceedings

and the Asylum Procedure entered into force. The most important changes of the reform

include the complete abandoning of the routine revision of the status under the former

Section 73(2a) of the Asylum Act. Prior to the reforms, a revision of the status was initiated

automatically by BAMF 3 years after the first final decision on the status.¹⁰⁷⁶

In Greece, throughout 2022, the Greek Council of Refugees reported a significant increase in

the number of cessation decisions for beneficiaries under the “old procedure’’. According to

this reporting, beneficiaries whose countries of origin were included in the list of safe

countries of origin by Joint Ministerial Decisions were served with decisions of a few

paragraphs long without an individualised assessment, citing only the Joint Ministerial

Decision as a reasoning. Beneficiaries must wait months until their case is given an asylum

case number before their appeal can be examined by the Appeals Authority. They then must

wait months after their appeal has been heard to be called for an oral hearing by the Appeals

Authority. Throughout this time, they are in possession of the certificate of filing an appeal,

which does not give them access to the labour market, health care or the social assistance

system.¹⁰⁷⁷

In Hungary, as of January 2022, the grounds for exclusion from subsidiary protection were

complemented by an additional case. Accordingly, a foreigner is not granted subsidiary

protection if there are reasonable grounds to believe that, prior to their admission by Hungary,

they committed an offence in their country of origin which is punishable in Hungary by a term

of imprisonment of up to 3 years or more and there are reasonable grounds for believing that

the applicant left their country of origin only in order to avoid the penalty for the offence. This

ground serves as a basis for the withdrawal of subsidiary protection status as well.¹⁰⁷⁸

The courts continued to interpret practices associated with reviews and withdrawal grounds

and procedures. The CJEU concluded that asylum authorities cannot be required to

automatically take into account the non-reasoned opinion of specialist bodies for national

security - like the secret service - when deciding on withdrawing international protection. The

court underlined that the authorities must have all available information to conduct an

254

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

assessment freely, and information may partially be provided by the secret service, but it

cannot be binding on the authority.

The Dutch Council of State referred several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling to

provide guidance on the interpretation and assessment of a particularly serious crime when

national authorities intend to withdraw the international protection status. The court asked

whether the final conviction for a particularly serious crime was enough to demonstrate a

threat to society or must the authorities prove that the threat to society continues to exist even

after a conviction.

In another instance, the council referred for re-examination the case of an Afghan national

whose refugee status was withdrawn in 2020. Noting that there was a radical change in the

circumstances in Afghanistan in 2021, the withdrawal decision needed to be reconsidered in

the light of these changes.

The Tribunal of Brescia in Italy confirmed that the renewal of subsidiary protection status must

not be conditional on holding a passport.

The Council of State in Belgium sent a case back for reconsideration by CALL, as it found that

the court did not substantiate properly the reasons which justify the 10-year time limit for

withdrawing international protection based on one ground mentioned in the law, while there

was no time limit on withdrawing protection on other grounds.

The Irish Supreme Court confirmed that the revocation of refugee status cannot have a

retrospective effect, unless it is specifically stated in national legislation. Thus, the appellant

could keep his Irish citizenship acquired at birth, even though his father’s refugee status was

later revoked.

The French Council of State reiterated that, when refugee status is withdrawn, a person can

only be returned if the authorities undertake an in-depth, individual assessment of the

personal situation and the risk of ill treatment in the country of origin. The council noted that

refugee status may be withdrawn, but the person is still considered to be a refugee and a

removal is possible only after an individual assessment of the personal situation and of the

absence of risk in the country of return.

The ECtHR underlined this in two cases related to the return of persons whose application for

international protection had been revoked. In R. v France, the court observed that the French

Administrative Court pronounced a decision with the reasons for rejecting the applicant’s

request against a deportation decision only after the deportation had taken place, and thus it

could have not remedied the inadequacy of the earlier risk analysis. In W. v France, the court

found that the person would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, as the

prefecture disclosed details about his personal situation to the consulate when requesting

readmission.

The courts were also called upon to assess the impact of withdrawal procedures in other

EU+ countries when deciding on the cases of applicants who had already obtained

international protection status in a Member State but then moved onward to ask for

international protection again in another. For example, the Dutch Court of The Hague granted

interim measures for a Syrian family and then decided against their readmission to Bulgaria,

where they would risk losing their international protection status. The Bulgarian authorities

may revoke an international protection status when the beneficiary does not extend the

identity document or residence permit on time.

255

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.14.2.3. Residence permits and travel documents

Member States must issue a residence permit to beneficiaries of

international protection: refugees should receive a permit for at least 3

years which is renewable and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection

should receive a permit for at least 1 year which is renewable. Refugees

are entitled to travel documents as foreseen in the Geneva Convention,

while beneficiaries of subsidiary protection may receive the national

passport of their host country, under specific conditions. Obtaining

documentation is often an administrative criterion for accessing other

permits and rights for beneficiaries of international condition.

With EU+ countries prioritising the ivssuance of permits to beneficiaries of temporary

protection, delays were reported in the issuance of residence permits for beneficiaries of

international protection.¹⁰⁷⁹

In Belgium, where the country’s reception system was under pressure in 2022, it was reported

that some applicants received international protection without having access to the reception

system, thus being largely homeless. Without an address, it was difficult to obtain a residence

permit (A-card) at the local commune when receiving a positive decision. Without this permit,

the status holder can encounter difficulties in obtaining financial aid, opening a bank account

and renting a place to live.¹⁰⁸⁰

In Finland, the delivery of residence permits, aliens’ passports and refugee travel documents

was temporarily delayed due to a shortage of staff and a backlog in the processing of aliens’

passports and refugee travel documents.¹⁰⁸¹

In France, it was reported that beneficiaries of international protection encountered difficulties

in obtaining their residence permits due to the implementation of a digital system which

presented several shortcomings and issues with accessing prefectures for the issuance of

residence permits.¹⁰⁸² In June 2022, the Council of State ordered the Ministry of the Interior to

establish a solution as an alternative to the solely digitalised procedure.¹⁰⁸³

Refugee Support Aegean continued to observe important delays in the delivery of residence

permits for beneficiaries of international protection in Greece,¹⁰⁸⁴ especially those re-admitted

from other EU+ countries.¹⁰⁸⁵ This document is a pre-requisite to access many other rights and

services, including health care and employment.

In January 2022, a new Immigration Service appointment scheduling system, which would

streamline and further improve the registration process, was announced in Ireland. The interim

ISD Registration Office Burgh Quay created a free phone number to call, so that applicants

residing in Dublin could book a first-time registration appointment. As of January 2023, the

revised appointment and scheduling system was fully operational, however, applicants

continued to experience significant delays in obtaining appointments.¹⁰⁸⁶

256

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The Irish government also suspended the Council of Europe’s Agreement on the Abolition of

Visas for Refugees for 12 months, in an effort to protect the integrity of the Irish asylum and

reception systems. The decision came after an increase in the number of applicants who had

already been granted international protection in another EU Member State.¹⁰⁸⁷

Aditus foundation in Malta carried out research on obstacles to receive relevant

documentation for several target groups, including family members of beneficiaries of

international protection. The organisation made several recommendations to speed up the

delivery of residence cards.¹⁰⁸⁸ The International Protection Agency added that protection

cards for beneficiaries of international protection were delivered promptly, on the same day as

the decision.

The Italian Council of State clarified that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and

humanitarian (special) protection must be granted travel documents from authorities, without

having to prove that they cannot obtain a passport from their country of origin. The council

noted that frequently the national authority in the country of origin prevents a beneficiary from

acquiring a passport. In addition, a circular simplified the procedure for a refugee to marry in

Italy: documentation from the country of origin is no longer needed and a sworn statement is

sufficient.¹⁰⁸⁹

In Germany, higher administrative courts found it unreasonable to expect that a passport be

obtained from the embassy of the country of origin, for example, for beneficiaries of subsidiary

protection from Eritrea and Syria who refused to do their military service.

The EctHR condemned Lithuania for not issuing a travel document to a former beneficiary of

subsidiary protection with long-term residence. The national authorities found that the person

did not justify why he had been unable to obtain a valid passport from his country of origin.

However, the court concluded that the authorities rejected the request for a travel document

on formalistic grounds, without examining the particular circumstances of the person.

For acquiring long-term residence in Sweden, the government appointed an inquiry

commission to assess making language knowledge and knowledge of the Swedish society

requirements for permanent residence.¹⁰⁹⁰

In Denmark, amendments were adopted to the criteria to acquire permanent residence. The

person should not be convicted of ‘negative social control’ (for example, sending a child

abroad for religious re-education) and could be barred from being granted a permanent

residence permit for a minimum of 6 years depending on the type and length of the sentence.

Similar changes were introduced as criteria for family reunification (see Section 4.14.2.4).¹⁰⁹¹

The Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice reviewed a decision to refuse long-term

residence for a beneficiary of international protection based on a classified note from the

Romanian Intelligence Service. The court found that the reasoning of the decision was

insufficient, as the decision should include all reasons and elements of evidence that form its

basis.

257

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.14.2.4. Family reunification

Amendments were adopted to family reunification rules in Denmark. As a

rule, the sponsor living in Denmark or the sponsor's spouse or cohabitant

should not be convicted of ‘negative social control’ (for example, sending a

child abroad to conditions that seriously endanger the child's health or

development) for a period of 10 years to be able to proceed with family

reunification with a child. Similar changes were introduced as a criterion for

acquiring a permanent residence permit (see Section 4.14.2.3).¹⁰⁹²

The Finnish Aliens Act was amended, and as of 1 February 2023, minors who have received

international protection became exempted from the requirement of having sufficient financial

resources. Family members can now be granted a residence permit, even when the minor

sponsor does not fulfil this requirement,¹⁰⁹³ as recommended by UNHCR and civil society

organisations in 2021¹⁰⁹⁴ and the Finnish Human Rights Centre in June 2022.¹⁰⁹⁵ However,

contrary to the recommendations, the requirement remained unchanged for adult

beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.¹⁰⁹⁶

Due to an increase in the number of family reunification applications, the Finnish Immigration

Service announced a backlog in their processing in October 2022. The backlog concerned

only a limited number of applications, and 60% of the requests submitted in 2022 received a

decision within 3 months.¹⁰⁹⁷

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court analysed a family reunification request in light of

the CJEU judgment in B.M.M. and others from 2020. The court underlined that, in principle, a

final and binding decision should not be overturned as a matter of legal certainty. However, in

the particular case, the incorrect application of the law could not be corrected by a new

application. Thus, the court annulled the final decision and ordered the authorities to process

the case again, listing the sponsor’s son as a minor.

The Icelandic government approved a proposal to allow family reunification for young Afghan

refugees who received protection shortly after turning 18 years. In principle, only persons

under the age of 18 can apply for family reunification with their parents and siblings under

18 years old.¹⁰⁹⁸

In Germany, in 2021 and 2022, several federal states (Berlin, Bremen, Hessen, Schleswig-

Holstein and Thuringia) decided to put regional family reunification programmes, which were

approved by the federal government, in place for family members of Afghan refugees. For

Syrian refugees, some regional programmes for family reunification are still in place. These

programmes are reserved for first- and second-degree relatives of persons living in Germany

with refugee status or another legal residential status. In contrast to the ‘normal’ family

reunification procedure, the family members living in Germany must act as sponsors by

declaring that they will cover the cost of living of their relatives (either from their own

resources or with the help of external sponsors).¹⁰⁹⁹

Italy launched a new digital platform to facilitate the family reunification procedure. It allows,

for example, a request to be submitted online.¹¹⁰⁰

In Austria, civil society organisations expressed concern about the time limit to apply for family

reunification, given that applications must be submitted personally to an Austrian embassy

and waiting times were often lengthy.¹¹⁰¹

258

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

UNHCR in Spain was concerned by the long processing times for family reunification. The

organisation observed that the procedure could take more than 18 months, as it involves a

complex procedure with several authorities, and guidelines seemed to be lacking on their

cooperation. The organisation also noted that beneficiaries usually received very little

information on the status of their request.

The Belgian government announced its intention to create a separate right of residence

through family reunification of parents of children who are recognised beneficiaries of

international protection, but who themselves do not qualify for international protection.¹¹⁰²

The Dutch IND announced several measures in April 2022 to shorten the waiting time for

family reunification and close the backlog. Other measures aimed to speed up the process

once family members were in the Netherlands, for example, by creating a separate location

and strand for the registration of their application (see Section 4.1).¹¹⁰³ However, a new

judgment from the Council of State advised the IND to always weigh the different interests

before taking a decision in a family reunification case. For example, it was no longer sufficient

to conclude a lack of emotional ties without weighing further elements. The additional steps

would likely extend processing times rather than reducing them.

Likewise, the Council of State delivered a judgment on the right to be heard in family

reunification cases. Dutch law allows to waive the obligation to hear an applicant in family

reunification cases when the person’s objection against a planned decision is considered to

be manifestly unfounded. In the specific case, the council concluded that the applicants

submitted additional evidence and substantiated special individual circumstances that should

have led to a hearing.

A study published in June 2022 found that Dutch family reunification legislation was

perceived to be more lenient than in other EU+ countries. This led to many unaccompanied

children applying for asylum in the country with the objective to be reunited with their families

afterwards.¹¹⁰⁴

In August 2022, the new policies to accelerate procedures in the Netherlands were halted

due to a lack of places in reception. The temporary measures aimed to restrict family

reunification until 31 December 2023. A visa was only issued to a family member when the

assigned municipality notified that suitable accommodation had been found for the

recognised beneficiary and the family members planning to join. The procedure was foreseen

to take a maximum of 15 months: 9 months to check the family reunification application and

6 months to issue the visa. If no accommodation was found within the 15-month period, the

family members would be issued a visa immediately. The government has proposed an

amendment to relevant legislation to increase the formal decision time limit for family

reunification cases from 6 to 9 months, the maximum allowed by the Family Reunification

Directive.¹¹⁰⁵

Following the entry into force of the temporary measures, several courts have granted interim

protection against decisions to refuse a family reunification visa due to a lack of reception

places. The Council of State pronounced a ruling on this matter related to three cases in

February 2023.¹¹⁰⁶ In all three cases, the council ruled that the measure was against national

and EU laws.¹¹⁰⁷ Following the rulings, the measure was immediately abolished.

259

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

The ECtHR considered the suspension of family reunification introduced by the Temporary

Law in Sweden, in contrast to its judgment in M.A. v Denmark, where it assessed the 3-year

waiting period for family reunification. The court concluded that Swedish legislation was not in

breach of the ECHR, Article 8, as the suspension had been applicable in this particular case

for less than 2 years, the difference in treatment between refugees and beneficiaries of

subsidiary protection was objectively justified, and the effect of the differential treatment was

not disproportionate. The court also underlined that “the best interests of a child, of whatever

age, could not constitute a ‘trump card’ that required the admission of all children who would

be better off living in a Contracting State”.

During the course of the year, the CJEU addressed several questions on determining minority

for the purposes of family reunification. The court underlined that the main objective of the

Family Reunification Directive was to favour reuniting families and the directive must be

applied toward the best interests of a child (see Section 2.6). Hence, it was contrary to EU law

that German authorities took into account the date of the decision on the entry and residence

visa as determining the minority or majority of the applicant or the sponsor. In another ruling

delivered on the same day, the CJEU concluded that the date of the sponsor’s application for

international protection needs to be taken into account to determine the minority of the

sponsor’s child.

The court gave guidance on assessing the existence of a real family relationship in these

particular cases. The German civil society organisation, PRO ASYL, welcomed the ruling to

strengthen family reunification rights across the EU.¹¹⁰⁸ The SMA in Sweden updated its legal

guidance following the decision.¹¹⁰⁹ Still, the Belgian Council of State referred again questions

for a preliminary ruling and asked which moment should be decisive when determining the

minority of the person to be reunited with the sponsor: the moment when the sponsor

submitted the application for international protection or when the protection is granted.

In addition, the CJEU ruled on the family reunification of unaccompanied minors and

concluded that the child does not have to be unmarried to benefit from the right to family

reunification with the parents.

In light of recent CJEU case law, the Administrative Court in Luxembourg found in one case

that a refugee child could not be considered to be unaccompanied for the purpose of family

reunification after her adult brother was appointed as her guardian. However, the authorities

should have taken other circumstances into account when deciding on her request to reunite

with her parents, such as the child’s young age and her psychological distress since her

separation from the parents. The Human Rights Committee recommended to the

Luxembourgish government to cease imposing strict deadlines for family reunification under

more favourable conditions for beneficiaries of international protection.¹¹¹⁰

The Finnish Supreme Administrative Court considered the validity of proxy marriages for

family reunification procedures. In one case, the court noted that the request cannot be

refused only because the marriage certificate was not legalised or because it was not entered

in the Finnish population registry. The court underlined that the authorities need to assess the

reason for the proxy marriage, which was legal in the spouse’s country of origin. In addition,

the authorities should assess the duration and stability of family life and the intention to start

family life as a married couple

260

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In another case, the court observed that the reasons invoked to marry by video link did not

seem convincing. However, the facts indicated the couple’s intention to establish a family life,

and thus, the marriage was considered as valid.

In Cyprus, IPAC issued a positive decision (YT v RoC via CRMD, ΔΔΠ 500/2019, decision date

10 November 2022) in a case of a recognised refugee who had applied for family reunification

with the spouse and 4 underage children. As the applicant had applied 3 months after the

status was granted, the application was subject to material conditions. The application had

been rejected by the Civil Registry and Migration Department (CRMD) on the basis of financial

criteria. Although the applicant was employed, it was deemed that the income was insufficient

to support the family. IPAC annulled the decision on the basis of insufficient research of the

material facts by the CRMD and provided clear guidance on the examination of family

reunification applications of refugees, emphasising the need for the CRMD to take into

consideration the special circumstances of refugees and the best interests of the child.¹¹¹¹

The Tribunal of Brussels submitted an urgent request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on

the legality of family members of a beneficiary of international protection having to submit

their request for family reunification at a Belgian diplomatic or consular office. In parallel, the

Flemish Refugee Action made recommendations on facilitating the family reunification

procedure for beneficiaries of international protection. It demanded that the government

change the legislation and allow family members to apply digitally, without the need to travel

to the nearest consular post or embassy.¹¹¹²

Assessing the requirement for documentary evidence in family reunification procedures, the

Belgian CALL overruled the decision of the Immigration Office to reject a request by an

Afghan beneficiary of subsidiary protection because he was unable to present a marriage

certificate or the results of a DNA test proving family ties. The applicant’s wife was requested

to provide a criminal record, as a precondition for the DNA test. CALL concluded that it was

unfair to make the DNA test preconditional on submitting a criminal record, taking into account

the overall situation in Afghanistan. Based on the Family Reunification Directive, Article 11(2),

the office should have taken into account other pieces of evidence and circumstances to

assess the existence of a family relationship.

In contrast, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the rejection of a family

reunification request because a valid travel document from the country of origin was not

submitted. One of the parents wanted to be reunited with the spouse (sponsor) who had

obtained a residence permit on individual humanitarian grounds and with the child who had

refugee status in Finland. However, the parent’s application for international protection was

rejected and the authorities found no reasons for which he could not contact his home

country’s authorities. The court underlined that residence permits for family reunification can

only be issued in exceptional cases when the travel document is lacking and no special

circumstances affected the child’s best interests to justify an exemption.

In another case, the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court sent back a case for re-

examination, as it found that the child’s best interests were not sufficiently analysed when the

authorities rejected one of the parent’s request for family reunification based on the suspicion

that his request intended to circumvent general migration regulations.

The Dutch Council of State reiterated that the authorities should assess information in a

holistic way and consider whether the benefit of doubt can be given to the applicant following

this examination. In family reunification cases involving nationals of Eritrea, the authorities

261

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

must take into account the limited availability of documents and not hold it against the

applicant that the birth certificate is missing.

In the case of a request to reunite an Afghan mother with her child and husband who already

received protection in Belgium, CALL annulled the rejection as the administrative documents

did not show evidence of the authority’s examination of the best interests of the child or the

child’s serious illness.

In June 2022, the Civil Court of Rome accepted an appeal presented by a Somali beneficiary

of international protection against the refusal of a family visa for his wife based on the

absence of sufficient documentation certifying the marriage bond. The applicant was not

present at the time of the registration of the marriage and his signature had been affixed by a

third person. The court highlighted the limits faced by a holder of international protection in

producing the required documentation and insisted on the need to highlight further elements

for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the link.¹¹¹³

In Germany, in December 2022, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that a distinction

between refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection for the right to family reunification

does not violate the Constitution.¹¹¹⁴ Another discussion in 2022 concerned the additional

criteria for family reunification when minor children were the sponsors and wish to reunite with

their parents. Parents of unaccompanied minors may only be granted a visa if the family

already existed in the country of origin. In a particular case of interest, the child was born in

Germany, so it was argued that the ‘family’ did not exist yet at the time the parents were in the

country of origin. However, in June 2022, the Higher Administrative Court decided that the

criterion of the ‘already-existing family’ does not necessarily require identical persons but that

the family already exists as a family.¹¹¹⁵

In Sweden, the Migration Court of Appeal found that, when determining the age of the

sponsor for family reunification, the relevant time should be the time of the application for

family reunification. If the person is under 18 years when the application for family reunification

is lodged, there should be no condition that the application must be lodged within 3 months

from the decision of the residence permit.

In addition to this precedent ruling, the Swedish SMA issued a legal position in 2022 on the

relevant time to determine the age of an applicant or a sponsor. According to the legal

position, for a child who applies to reunite with a parent in Sweden, the relevant time is the

time of application for family reunification or, when the application for family reunification is

made within 3 months from when the parent was granted a residence permit and protection

status, the relevant time is when the parent applied for asylum. For a parent who applies to

reunite with a child in Sweden, the relevant time for determining the age of the child is the

time of the application for family reunification or, when the child was under 18 years when

applying for asylum but has turned 18 years at the time of application for family reunification,

that child is still considered as a child if the application for family reunification was lodged

within 3 months from the date the child was granted a residence permit.¹¹¹⁶

In February 2023, ECRE published a comparative report providing an overview of current state

legislation and practices in family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection in

23 European countries based on ECRE’s Asylum Information Database (AIDA). The report

focuses on both good practices and trends at the national level which may compromise the

effectiveness of the right to family reunification for beneficiaries of international protection.¹¹¹⁷

262

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

4.14.3. Developing policies: Integration plans and their

evaluation

4.14.3.1. Developing and updating integration strategies

The arrival of persons in need of temporary protection prompted many

countries to quickly establish dedicated integration programmes and make

additional funding available. This was seen in particular in Member States

near Ukraine, such as Czechia,¹¹¹⁸ Poland,¹¹¹⁹ Slovakia¹¹²⁰ and Romania.¹¹²¹

A dedicated, new strategy for the integration of applicants and beneficiaries

of international protection was published for consultation in Greece in January 2022.¹¹²²

Several organisations provided their comments, including recommendations to speed up the

delivery of necessary documentation (see Section 4.14.2.3) and facilitating children’s access to

education (see Section 4.14.4.2).¹¹²³

A new ministerial instruction defined the priorities of the integration policy for 2022 in France.

The instruction re-confirmed that integration through employment was a priority.¹¹²⁴ To this

end, the Accompagnement global et individualisé des réfugiés (AGIR) programme was

launched, proposing an individualised and comprehensive maximum 24-month integration

pathway to all beneficiaries of international protection. Focusing on access to long-term

housing, training and employment, the government deemed that this a significant

enhancement of the public efforts in supporting refugees with their professional integration.

The programme was rolled out in 26 departments in 2022, while 26 departments are planned

to follow in 2023, with the complete implementation throughout France planned for 2024.¹¹²⁵

The Icelandic parliament adopted a resolution for the implementation of an action plan for

immigration issues for 2022-2025. One of the main objectives of the plan is to implement a

long-term integration strategy.¹¹²⁶ Based on the resolution, a steering group was established to

formulate a comprehensive integration strategy, with a focus on labour market integration.¹¹²⁷

The European Commission launched a joint project with the IOM to support the Portuguese

High Commission for Migration in improving its capacity to address the evolving integration

needs of migrants and beneficiaries of international protection. The project focuses especially

on ensuring access to housing, education, employment, health services and related legal

counselling.¹¹²⁸

The Swedish SMA proposed that the government covers 8,200 beneficiaries of international

protection in its new instruction for municipalities for 2023, including 5,000 resettled refugees

(see Section 4.15). This represents the number of persons who are distributed across the

country’s municipalities for whom municipal authorities must arrange housing.¹¹²⁹ In addition,

since 1 July 2022, municipalities were assigned the task to arrange for the accommodation of

23,500 persons with temporary protection. In total, 16,400 were accommodated in 2022, and

7,100 was foreseen for 2023. Municipalities receive SEK 10,000 per person.¹¹³⁰

A new financing system in the asylum sector entered into force in Switzerland in

January 2023, intended to coordinate the tasks of care, social assistance and integration

support for refugees, provisionally admitted persons and persons in need of protection. The

cantons receive a lump sum of approximately EUR 18,000/year for each person in these three

categories aged 18 to 25 years if they are in vocational training or gainful employment. This

263

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

provides additional incentives for vocational training for youth and young adults. A correction

factor for low incomes was introduced for the 25-60-year age group in order to avoid

undesirable disincentives to vocational training or part-time employment. SEM underlined that

the new financing system is implemented in a cost-neutral manner. It intends to achieve the

rapid and sustainable integration of these persons and to reduce their dependency on social

assistance.¹¹³¹

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) noted that national

integration programmes for beneficiaries of international protection were discontinued in

Bulgaria, and initiatives at the local level did not adequately fill the gap.¹¹³² Thus, civil society

organisations, Multi Kulti Collective and the Bulgarian Council on Refugees and Migrants,

together with UNHCR, drafted a Manifesto on Refugee Integration, proposing that the National

Programme for Refugees’ Integration is restored, a new institutional structure for integration is

set up with an increased role for the State Agency for Refugees and a comprehensive

integration process is developed.¹¹³³ The document was developed as part of the National

Integration Evaluation Mechanism (NIEM) project, co-funded by AMIF, and it builds on the

results of the comprehensive monitoring report.¹¹³⁴

Researchers analysed Poland’s rapid transition from transit to host country for beneficiaries of

international protection and summarised the opportunities and limitations in the integration

process.¹¹³⁵

4.14.3.2. Revising legislation on integration

The revision of integration acts continued in Finland and the Netherlands,

with a greater focus on language requirements and the involvement of

municipalities. In Slovakia, the scope of persons who can benefit from

integration support and the offer of services were both increased. In Belgium,

a Flemish decree stipulated that as of January 2022 applicants for

international protection would not be able to follow the trajectory until they

were officially granted a protection status. With this decree, a third pillar (employment

services) was added to the first (social orientation) and second (Dutch language courses),

while another, fourth pillar focused on the participation in a network trajectory of 40 hours.

This pillar aims to extend a newcomer’s social network to increase their chances of integrating

into the local society.¹¹³⁶

The Finnish government put a legislative proposal to consultation on the comprehensive

reform of integration. The new system would increase the responsibility of municipalities in the

integration process, and services supporting integration would be organised in the framework

of a new municipal integration programme. Municipalities would assess the skills of migrants

and agree on a personal integration plan which includes services and goals.¹¹³⁷ The

programme would include an exam in the Finnish or Swedish language.

A corresponding legislative proposal was made to amend three different acts, transferring the

responsibility of health care and social services from municipalities to ‘wellbeing services

counties’. The proposal clarified their roles and responsibilities in the integration process.¹¹³⁸

When integration customers are clients of employment services and welfare areas, the

Integration Act has taken into account the transfer of social and health services from

municipalities to welfare areas from the beginning of 2023 and the transfer of employment

services from the state to municipalities from the beginning of 2025.

264

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Amendments to the Slovak Asylum Act entered into force in June 2022, regulating the initial

integration of beneficiaries of international protection. The law extends the provision of a one-

time financial contribution to foreigners who have been granted subsidiary protection and

introduces an integration allowance to all beneficiaries of international protection. Social and

psychological counselling and a cultural orientation course are provided as part of the initial

integration process, and integration centres are able to provide accommodation not only for

refugees but also for foreigners who have been granted subsidiary protection.¹¹³⁹

The new Civic Integration Law entered into force on 1 January 2022 in the Netherlands, where

newcomers under an integration obligation are guided through the process by

municipalities.¹¹⁴⁰ The Education Agency started to impose the integration obligation from the

beginning of the year but had to temporarily halt the process until March 2022, as for some

persons the old legislation from 2013 should have applied.¹¹⁴¹ The process resumed in

March 2022 without further complications. Evaluating the first year of the law’s

implementation, the Minister for Social Affairs and Employment noted the lack of qualified

Dutch language teachers, which could hinder the integration process.¹¹⁴²

4.14.3.3. Fostering cooperation among stakeholders

The trend continued in 2022 to involve various stakeholders and improve

collaboration on the integration of beneficiaries of international protection.

The urgent, large-scale need to provide integration support for persons in

need of temporary protection further catalysed this process. Countries had

the potential to pilot some new, innovative ways of working together in the

integration of persons in need of protection.¹¹⁴³ Efforts to implement the rights

enlisted in the Temporary Protection Directive seemed to have fostered a new degree of

cooperation among stakeholders.¹¹⁴⁴

The Urban Agenda for the EU Partnership on Inclusion of Migrants and Refugees followed up

on its new action plan for 2021-2022 and delivered recommendations for all seven action

areas related to access to health care, treatment of mental health concerns, the role of art and

culture in integration, specific concerns of LGBTIQ migrants, evidence-based policymaking in

cities, financial instruments to be used for integration by cities and children in migration.¹¹⁴⁵

A policy brief in the framework of the REGIN project observed that migrant and refugee

integration policies at the regional level were the most favourable in the areas of health and

education, while the least favourable policies concerned employment, housing and vocational

training. The brief also noted gaps in the participation of external stakeholders in regional

governance mechanisms for integration. The authors argued that the EU Action Plan on

Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027 was a significant opportunity to address policy gaps at

the regional level and made recommendations for regions, Member States and the European

Commission to use this potential for improvement.¹¹⁴⁶ In the MIPEX-R analysis, the authors’ key

finding was the lack of data on integration outcomes, especially for beneficiaries of

international protection.¹¹⁴⁷

Following the partnership signed by the European Commission and the Committee of the

Regions, a declaration was signed on the integration of migrants by the Italian Ministry of

Labour and Social Affairs, the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces, and the

National Association of Italian municipalities. The group pledged to improve coordination,

ensure consistent funding and work toward the same objectives. In addition, UNHCR launched

a Charter for the Integration of Refugees with six Italian cities.¹¹⁴⁸ The municipalities committed

265

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

to developing multifunctional integration centres, where beneficiaries of international

protection can find all the applicable information and services for their integration process.¹¹⁴⁹

In 2022, 235 partnerships were concluded between the French Ministry of the Interior and the

local authorities, amounting to EUR 10.5 million. Based on these partnerships, the local

authorities could develop measures to respond to the needs of the beneficiaries of

international protection to facilitate their integration, such as childcare, professional or driving

licence training, and cultural and sport activities with local communities.

A knowledge platform was developed in Czechia as part of the “Cities and Inclusive

Strategies” project, which is led by civil society organisations. The system stores all integration

projects in the country between 2004-2020 that received public or private funding.¹¹⁵⁰

The Cypriot Ministry of the Interior launched a call for civil society organisations to participate

in the Advisory Committee for the Integration of Migrants. The committee is foreseen to

include a maximum of three NGO members for a 2-year term.¹¹⁵¹

The Cities Network for Integration continued its activities in Greece and launched a new

website,¹¹⁵² showcasing for example the outcomes of the network’s first research project (see

Section 4.14.4.3).¹¹⁵³

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour in Iceland allocated funds to several municipalities for

the harmonised integration of beneficiaries of international protection. The projects covered

diverse areas depending on the priorities of the municipality and included, for example, a

course in parentings skills to help beneficiaries to support their children with trauma, training

in online banking and training for primary school staff to strengthen their skills in supporting

beneficiary children.¹¹⁵⁴

The Communities Integration Fund has been in place in Ireland since 2017, and in 2022,

124 community projects were chosen to receive EUR 566,500 to support the integration of

beneficiaries of international protection and migrants in general. Projects received priority

when involving women, children and youth, labour market integration and community

volunteering.¹¹⁵⁵

While the number of applicants for international protection was very low in Denmark (see

Section 4.1.3) and hundreds of municipal staff working on integration were made redundant in

recent years, municipalities signalled that it became challenging to ensure integration support

for Ukrainians in need of protection.¹¹⁵⁶

Coordinated by one of the Finnish Centres for Economic Development, Transport and

Environment (ELY Centres), a new AMIF-funded campaign was launched to promote the

participation of beneficiaries of international protection in the development of integration

services and improve the knowledge of municipality and employment services staff about

integration issues.¹¹⁵⁷

Civil society organisations from Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands and ECRE

drafted a training kit - with the involvement of several other stakeholders, including

representatives from national administrations - to empower refugee-led community

organisations to become active advocacy partners at the national and European levels.¹¹⁵⁸

266

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

A report from the Migration Institute of Finland and the Innonlink Group found that municipal

integration programmes increased cooperation between municipalities, different sectors and

different authorities. However, programmes should be more target-oriented, instead of simply

promoting integration, and municipalities do not always have the competence or resources to

implement such demanding programmes. More support and more detailed instructions were

needed. The results of the report fed into the integration reform process that was launched

in 2022 (see Section 4.14.3.2). The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment already

granted EUR 3 million to municipalities for projects to develop guidance and counselling

services for migrants regionally or in cooperation with several municipalities.¹¹⁵⁹

4.14.3.4. Evaluating integration plans and support

To support evidence-based policymaking, various stakeholders, including

national authorities, academia, think tanks and civil society organisations,

continued to evaluate components of integration programmes throughout

2022. Lessons learnt through efforts to integrate beneficiaries of temporary

protection will provide further insights on the impact of different approaches

in the future.

Finalising the 6-year transnational project to establish a mechanism for a biennial,

comprehensive evaluation of the integration of beneficiaries of international protection, the

National Integration Evaluation Mechanism project delivered the second set of national

evaluation reports for Bulgaria,¹¹⁶⁰ Czechia,¹¹⁶¹ France,¹¹⁶² Greece,¹¹⁶³ Hungary,¹¹⁶⁴ Italy,¹¹⁶⁵

Latvia,¹¹⁶⁶ Lithuania,¹¹⁶⁷ the Netherlands,¹¹⁶⁸ Poland,¹¹⁶⁹ Slovenia,¹¹⁷⁰ Spain¹¹⁷¹ and Sweden.¹¹⁷² The

summary presents the achievements and recommendations of the project.¹¹⁷³ Thematic

outputs in 2022 addressed the participation of beneficiaries of international protection in the

public sphere,¹¹⁷⁴ the impact of underdeveloped integration policies for beneficiaries of

international protection, the challenge to integrate persons in need of temporary protection,¹¹⁷⁵

the response of Latvia and Lithuania on the influx of irregular migrants from Belarus,¹¹⁷⁶

a refugees’ perspectives on integration policies in Czechia,¹¹⁷⁷ and data gaps in refugee

integration in Europe.¹¹⁷⁸

In Croatia, the Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities published a report on

the social inclusion of persons granted international protection, evaluating integration policies

using different indicators.¹¹⁷⁹

The German BAMF published an analysis of the internal mobility of persons with a protection

status who have entered the country between 2015 and 2019. Married, displaced women

between 30 and 49 years were particularly immobile and not likely to move from one place to

another. Persons over 49 years (for both sexes) were also considered to be very immobile.

Urban areas remained the most attractive for beneficiaries of international protection, even

though these areas had a relatively high level of unemployment.¹¹⁸⁰

The French Scientific Committee for the Evaluation of the Plan for Investing in Skills evaluated

the inclusion of labour market integration measures in local policies for the integration of

beneficiaries of international protection. The assessment involved eight departments on

policies which were implemented during 2018-2021. The report found that coordination was

progressing among the various measures but some fragmentation remained. Labour market

measures seemed to be particularly impacted by the lack of accommodation, thus the

committee suggested to involve stakeholders implementing social housing measures.¹¹⁸¹

267

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

The Swedish Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy researched the

impact of the length of the asylum procedure on integration and found that beneficiaries who

had to wait longer for their final decision had lower earnings.¹¹⁸²

The Council of Europe published a report assessing integration policies in Cyprus, looking

also into the specific challenges of beneficiaries of international protection.¹¹⁸³

Researcher in Greece evaluated refugee integration measures which were adopted after an

assessment of court decisions and integration indicators in the field of housing, health care,

social services, education and employment. The authors acknowledged the challenge to

integrate continuous flows of refugees from different countries and cultures, and argued that

more human and financial resources were necessary to be able to establish accessible, good

quality services for integration.¹¹⁸⁴

The Rockwool Foundation and University College London analysed Danish integration policies

over 40 years and found that reduced social benefits and early job training improved the

employment rate of beneficiaries of international protection in the short run. But early job

training may not have long-term consequences, as the participants will be less likely to learn

the necessary language skills to find higher-paying jobs. In contrast, targeted placement and

language courses had a positive long-term effect on the salaries and employment

opportunities of beneficiaries. Restricting criteria of permanent residence may hinder the

integration of less-resourceful groups, which may be discouraged by the strict criteria.¹¹⁸⁵

The Danish Institute of Human Rights focused on the impact of changes in the rules for a

beneficiary to obtain a residence permit and noted several legal uncertainties in the process

of withdrawing international protection.¹¹⁸⁶ Civil society organisations published a joint position

paper arguing to re-introduce more stable permits and to count periods of education as work

experience for the purpose of the permit.¹¹⁸⁷

Aditus foundation and the Jesuit Refugee Service Malta investigated the socio-economic

integration of beneficiaries of international protection and concluded that they had little

chance to emerge from poverty and social exclusion. The report notes that the lack of

language and vocational training during the reception phase were missed opportunities that

could support prospective beneficiaries towards self-sufficiency. The organisations urged

policymakers to revise legislation and allow beneficiaries of international protection to vote in

national elections and hold public positions.

In addition, the organisations requested the government to tackle racism in a firm manner.¹¹⁸⁸

Indeed, aditus foundation issued a press statement expressing its concerns over violence

against and exploitation of migrants, including beneficiaries of international protection.¹¹⁸⁹

Following reports of police violence against black people,¹¹⁹⁰ the Malta Refugee Council

welcomed the swift action and the zero tolerance approach of the Malta Police Force to

investigate the serious allegations.¹¹⁹¹

The Bulgarian Red Cross commissioned a study on public attitudes towards refugees, which

showed a positive change in the attitudes of citizens, with 62% having a positive or rather

positive opinion. In 2022, 49% indicated they felt empathy towards refugees, a number which

was only 3% in 2017.¹¹⁹²

Lithuanian NGOs came to similar conclusions and observed that hostility towards refugees

decreased in 2022 and the share of residents supporting integration measures also

increased. However, the survey in Lithuania also found that the majority of people still

268

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

considered the impact of beneficiaries of international protection as a negative one on the

host society.¹¹⁹³

A publication from the think tank ODI examined public attitudes towards refugees in Poland

and noted a dichotomy in perceptions between ‘not real’ and ‘genuine’ refugees, depending

on the country of origin. While those arriving from Ukraine were seen as in need of support,

the report warns that the positive narrative might change in the long term with concerns about

rising living costs.¹¹⁹⁴ Researchers presented selected integration practices at the local level in

Warsaw, which could inspire policies in other cities which are less experienced with migrant

and refugee integration.¹¹⁹⁵ Another paper focused on the integration experiences of

Ukrainian refugees in Krakow.¹¹⁹⁶

In Croatia, the Office for Human Rights and Rights of National Minorities, as part of the

Intersectoral Cooperation in the Empowerment of the Third-Country Nationals (INCLuDE)

project, analysed media coverage in 2018 and 2019 of migrants in the country, especially

beneficiaries of international protection and resettled refugees. The analysis will help to

formulate guidelines and recommendations for media reporting.¹¹⁹⁷

4.14.4. Support for integration

4.14.4.1. Social orientation and daily administration

The Global Refugee-Led Network, the European Coalition of Migrants and

Refugees, and New Women Connectors published a briefing paper with

recommendations on operationalising the concept of ‘meaningful refugee

participation’ in decision-making processes that impact refugees’ lives.¹¹⁹⁸

In 2022, the majority of initiatives were targeted towards beneficiaries of

temporary protection to support them in adjusting quickly to the daily life in their host

country.¹¹⁹⁹

Among legislative changes on establishing rules for orientation courses for beneficiaries of

international protection, new rules entered into force in Austria on 1 January 2022, and the

obligatory orientation course was extended from 8 to 24 hours (from 1 to 3 days) to include

modules on gender equality, antisemitism and the importance of voluntary work.¹²⁰⁰

In Belgium, integration programmes for newcomers became mandatory in Brussels as of

April 2022, including for beneficiaries of international protection.¹²⁰¹ These programmes were

already mandatory in Flanders and Wallonia. Plans were delayed to include a list of Flemish

cultural, historical and scientific reference points in the integration of programme of Flanders.

The independent expert committee was to finalise the list by October 2022, but the deadline

was postponed to spring 2023 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.¹²⁰²

In Latvia, the Society Integration Fund took over the information centre for newcomers,¹²⁰³ and

it launched a one-stop shop to provide information, support and services to beneficiaries of

international protection and third-country nationals.¹²⁰⁴

269

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

A new AMIF-funded pilot project in Greece offers intercultural tours of Athens for beneficiaries

of international protection to better understand Greek culture and history.¹²⁰⁵

In France, the Ministry of the Interior signed a partnership agreement with the centre of

national monuments that allows the beneficiaries of international protection who signed the

contrat d’intégration républicaine (CIR, republican integration contract) to visit monuments in

the country for free.

In Poland, integration centres for foreigners were opened in two provinces in March 2022 as

part of the project implemented by the Ministry of Family and Social Policy and co-financed by

the AMIF fund, “Building structures for the integration of foreigners in Poland - Stage II -

Piloting Foreigner Integration Centres”. In the Opolskie Voivodeship, the centre is operated by

the Voivodeship Labour Office, and in the Wielkopolskie Voivodeship, by the Regional Centre

for Social Policy. In Wielkopolska, five centres were established, each in a different city. The

aim of the pilot is to shape and improve the way Foreigner Integration Centres should work.

Third-country nationals can benefit from services offered at the integration centres, for

example Polish language courses, adaptation courses, and legal and psychological support.

National authorities have highlighted that the one-stop shop approach offers comprehensive

services and helps to expand services with additional modules. The pilot project runs until the

end of September 2023.

Many initiatives focused on offering social orientation more rapidly to persons with temporary

protection,¹²⁰⁶ building on experiences with social orientation for beneficiaries of international

protection. For example, in Sweden, special digital social introduction programmes were

launched for beneficiaries of temporary protection.¹²⁰⁷ The programme has been in place for

beneficiaries of international protection since 2021, but it is delivered through in-person

information sessions.

Beneficiaries of international protection may be faced with several administrative challenges

when re-establishing themselves in a new country. For example, in Bulgaria, a beneficiary of

subsidiary protection tried to open a bank account, but the bank did not provide a reply on his

request. The Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court’s assessment that the

bank had a legal obligation to provide a written reasoned decision when refusing to open a

bank account. The law provides an exhaustive list of refusal grounds in this case, and the

refusal can only be based on one of these grounds.

4.14.4.2. Children’s education

In 2022, national authorities and civil society organisations focused on

facilitating access to education for Ukrainian children, which entailed several

legislative changes, the creation of new information material and the provision

of special guidance and support to schools and educators.¹²⁰⁸ The European

Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) reported on European and

national initiatives to support Ukrainian children’s access to education.¹²⁰⁹

For child beneficiaries of international protection, a new guide for the integration of refugee

children was disseminated to schools in Portugal, including practical suggestions for raising

awareness.¹²¹⁰

The Italian Ministry of the Interior made 100 university scholarships available for beneficiaries

of international protection for the 2022-2023 school year.¹²¹¹

270

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

DFUNK, the youth branch of the Danish Refugee Council and the Danish Youth Council (DUF),

developed a flyer for local civil society organisations on providing support for the integration

of children and youth beneficiaries of international protection and encouraging enrolment in

formal education. The recommendations were formulated to be transferable to other national

contexts as well.¹²¹² In general, the Danish Ministry for Immigration and Integration found that

more and more non-Western immigrants (who arrived to Denmark at an early age) and

descendants of beneficiaries of international protection and other immigrants complete higher

education, and while there still was a gap with native Danes, it has significantly narrowed over

the past years.¹²¹³ According to the national integration barometer, education was the area

where the greatest improvement was observed over the past 10 years.¹²¹⁴

UNHCR Slovenia published support material for primary and secondary school teachers on

teaching child beneficiaries of international protection and teaching children in general about

refugees.¹²¹⁵

The civil society organisation France Terre d’Asile published a special newsletter focusing on

access to higher education for beneficiaries of international protection. The publication shows

some support measures which are in place and notes administrative and financial challenges

in beneficiaries’ access to higher education studies. For example, it notes that refugees can

be exempted from university fees by the head of the university, but this may not be widely

known.¹²¹⁶

Several NGOs working in Ireland launched a new online learning platform for beneficiaries of

international protection who have restricted access to education, focusing on language

learning and IT skills.¹²¹⁷

The University of East London released a series of reports related to the digitalisation of

support services for refugee children and youth in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The reports make recommendations on supporting unaccompanied children in developing

digital skills,¹²¹⁸ designing hybrid forms of support services in a suitable manner¹²¹⁹ and

supporting civil society staff on providing emotional assistance online.¹²²⁰

4.14.4.3. Employment

While the majority of initiatives in 2022 focused on supporting persons with

temporary protection to rapidly find employment, initiatives continued to also

facilitate the integration of beneficiaries of international protection through

employment. Policies were reviewed to enhance their efficiency. The European

Commission launched the EU Talent Pool Pilot initiative to help people fleeing

the war in Ukraine in finding employment in the EU. The Croatian Ministry of

the Interior underlined that people with temporary protection were given free access to the

labour market and they are referred to the EU Talent Pool initiative to support them in finding

a job.

The Belgian Fedasil’s new management plan (see Section 4.7) requires the agency to put

more emphasis on preparing residents for life after reception, for example, through

employment support and the acquisition of skills.¹²²¹

In France, the agents of the employment service (“pôle emploi”) intervene during workshops

dedicated to accessing the labour market during the civic training under the republican

integration contract. In addition, an “employment space” was created in the single desks for

271

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

beneficiaries of international protection to inform them of support services. A translation

device was also rolled out for the agencies of the employment service to facilitate access of

beneficiaries of international protection to their services. New specific devices and pilots were

developed under the supervision of the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education to

facilitate the recognition of qualifications and skills.

A new online platform was launched by UNHCR Greece in partnership with the Catholic Relief

Services to connect asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection with

prospective employers. The platform supports the general work of the Adama Integration

Centre, run by the Catholic Relief Services, Caritas Hellas in partnership with UNHCR.¹²²²

The Cities Network for Integration published its first study identifying obstacles for the

employment of beneficiaries of international protection in Greece and suggested solutions for

overcoming them.¹²²³

In order to familiarise employers with a beneficiary’s right to full access to the labour market,

the Cyprus Refugee Council, in collaboration with the UNHCR Representation in Cyprus,

launched the online digital platform, ‘HelpRefugeesWork’, which connects employers and

training providers with beneficiaries and acts as an advocacy tool. Between 2018 and 2022,

more than 900 beneficiaries of international protection registered in the platform, applied for

jobs and received employment-related guidance and support. At the same time, more than

50 well-known businesses covering a wide spectrum of employment sectors have posted

positions.¹²²⁴

The Danish government and social partners (representatives of employer organisations and

trade unions) agreed to continue with the Initial Integration Training scheme, offering paid

internships and training for beneficiaries of international protection, which is complementary

to other schemes offering work placements, wage subsidies and mentoring. The scheme was

launched in 2016 and was originally planned as a 3-year pilot.¹²²⁵

In Italy, the National Association of Employment Agencies and four trade unions signed an

agreement to facilitate the labour market integration of beneficiaries of international and

national forms of protection.¹²²⁶ The association also launched a partnership with UNHCR with

the same objective.¹²²⁷ As a result of these collaborations, a new online platform was launched

in four languages to present the support measures which are available.¹²²⁸ In addition, UNICEF

published a practical guide in cooperation with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs on

supporting young beneficiaries of international protection in their transition to the labour

market.¹²²⁹

In Malta, the Human Rights Directorate entered into an agreement with the Directorate for

Research, Lifelong Learning and Employability to provide literacy courses in Maltese and

English from January to June 2022. The completion of these courses was intended to

facilitate students’ admission into the ‘I Belong’ Programme, which aims to provide a holistic

approach to integration.¹²³⁰ In addition, Jobsplus and the Maltese Public Employment Service

administer an AMIF-funded project, Employment Support Services for Migrants. The aim of the

project is to focus on increasing the employability of migrant job seekers. Jobsplus has set up

a specific unit to offer eligible migrants guidance, upskilling and other professional support

services. It offers guidance services, job brokerage and training courses, including language

training in Maltese and English.¹²³¹

272

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

In the Netherlands, COA and United Work implemented an employment pilot for recognised

beneficiaries of international protection in the Eindhoven region. 90 people underwent an

assessment, and when their skills matched employment opportunities, they could start

working within 1 month, after an initial training. After the trial period, they receive an

employment contract which is valid for at least 6 months.¹²³²

The Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration and Reporters without Borders

signed an agreement for the integration of beneficiaries of international protection working in

communications and journalism.¹²³³ In addition, to expedite the process of recognising

academic qualifications of beneficiaries, which according to reports used to range from

9 months to 2 years, a new law was passed in October 2022 establishing a deadline of

6 months for relevant authorities to decide on diploma recognition.¹²³⁴

The law firm DLA Piper launched a legal education training programme in 2021 for applicants

and beneficiaries of international protection in Ireland, through the Irish Refugee Council. In

2022, the programme was completed with a partnership with Deloitte, providing three 6-

month internship opportunities for the programme’s participants.¹²³⁵ DLA Piper offered similar

training in Spain¹²³⁶ as part of their global collaboration framework with UNHCR.¹²³⁷

Transparency International Ireland and the Irish Refugee Council launched a joint project

encouraging vulnerable workers - especially beneficiaries of international protection - to

speak up about unsafe working conditions. Workers are offered guidance and free legal

advice on their rights.¹²³⁸

In Switzerland, SEM published the results of the third edition of the pre-apprenticeship

integration pilot programme in 2020-2021. 60% of the participants accessed initial vocational

training after the programme, despite the challenges encountered during the COVID-19

pandemic. During the fourth edition in 2021-2022, slightly less people applied and 55% of the

participants accessed initial vocational training.¹²³⁹ The continuation of the programme was

approved by the Swiss parliament in 2021, and it will become a permanent programme in

2024.¹²⁴⁰

The Swedish Public Employment Service published a report showing an important increase in

the number of unemployed people who lack upper secondary-level education, with the

majority of them being female beneficiaries of international protection. The report argues to

establish more efforts to identify and eliminate obstacles for these women to enter the labour

market.¹²⁴¹

The Nordic Council of Ministers published a comparative analysis of the labour market

integration of beneficiaries of international protection between 2008 and 2019 in Denmark,

Norway and Sweden. The study found that policies in all three countries were reasonably

efficient. All three Scandinavian countries have substantial earnings and employment gaps

between refugee men and women, but these gaps narrow somewhat after several years of

residence. The analysis noted that Norway and Sweden have similar labour market integration

outcomes for beneficiaries, but employment and earning levels were significantly lower in

Denmark, both in the short and long term (see Section 4.14.3.4).

273

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

4.14.4.4. Health

Following a peak in reviewing access to health care in many countries, which

was prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2022 many initiatives focused on

facilitating access to health care for persons fleeing the war in Ukraine,¹²⁴² but

fewer initiatives were captured specifically for beneficiaries of international

protection.

In May 2022, the organisation CEAR and the Fundación Sanitas signed an

agreement to provide comprehensive health assistance to refugees in Spain. The project will

provide mental health care, dental assistance and support for emotional well-being to more

than 75 refugees.¹²⁴³

An AMIF-funded project in Italy aims to develop a training curriculum for cultural mediators in

the health sector.¹²⁴⁴

The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare produced a multilingual video series on mental

health for beneficiaries of international protection. Beneficiaries themselves were included in

the development of the material and they also appear in the video (see Section 4.9).¹²⁴⁵

The civil society organisation Are You Syrious drafted a handbook on accessing health care

for beneficiaries of international protection in Croatia. The publication explains the legal

framework and provides recommendations for practitioners in treating beneficiaries.¹²⁴⁶

In Greece, a Ministerial Decision that came into effect in March 2022 provided that the

prescription of medicine, therapeutic operations and diagnostic examinations for patients

without health insurance will be possible only by doctors of public hospitals and primary

health care structures, not private doctors. According to the Greek Council of Refugees, this

affected the vast majority of beneficiaries of international protection, since most of them do

not have health insurance and will therefore no longer be able to visit private doctors.¹²⁴⁷

‘I have rights’, an NGO from Greece, applied for interim measures to the ECtHR concerning

the cases of two people with Hepatitis B who were denied urgent medical care for months in

Samos. The interim measures were granted and the beneficiaries of international protection

were transferred to the mainland for their medical treatment.¹²⁴⁸

Following the lifting of free interpretation in the health care sector in 2018, researchers from

the University of Copenhagen interviewed general practitioners on the experiences with

consultations with non-Danish speaking foreigners - many of them being beneficiaries of

international protection. The study concluded that this policy led to a lack of understanding

between doctors and patients, risked inadequate treatment and created an inequality in

accessing knowledge.¹²⁴⁹

4.14.4.5. Welfare

In Germany, the legal framework on social benefits for German nationals and

beneficiaries of international protection was revised completely, with the new

rules entering into force on 1 January 2023. The amount of financial benefits

was raised for several categories of beneficiaries, according to their profile.

Additionally, grounds for penalties upon non-compliance with obligations to

cooperate were reduced and the amount of financial reserves and extra

income next to the unemployment benefits were raised. To soften the continued effects of the

274

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

COVID-19 pandemic and inflation, the federal government introduced several additional

measures, including monthly support for certain categories of beneficiaries.¹²⁵⁰

The list of persons eligible for maternity allowance was extended in Italy; however, it still does

not include persons with asylum application permits or beneficiaries of international

protection.¹²⁵¹ According to ASGI, this exclusion might amount to illegal discrimination under

Italian law.¹²⁵² The Tribunal of Bergamo referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling

on whether national law could require beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to have a total of

10 years of residence in Italy, with 2 years of continuous residence, immediately before

applying for welfare benefits, such as basic income.

As of January 2022, a new Civic Integration Act entered into force in the Netherlands. A part

of this new system entails that beneficiaries of international protection will no longer be

entitled to social benefits during the first 6 months of their legal stay in a Dutch municipality.

Instead, the municipality will pay their costs for housing, energy bills and health care

insurance, as far as the social benefits reach. The beneficiaries will receive the rest of the

amount as an allowance, in addition to the benefits provided by the Tax Office and the Social

Security Bank. The goal of this system is to support refugees from the start so they can focus

more on their integration into Dutch society.¹²⁵³

In Cyprus, beneficiaries of international protection have a right to apply for financial aid

through the national Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) scheme. The Cyprus Refugee

Council reported that throughout 2021 and 2022 the examination of GMI applications,

including the rental allowance, reached or passed 12 months, even in cases of vulnerable or

homeless persons. During the examination period, an emergency allowance is provided which

varies from district to district and is considered extremely low, at about EUR 100-150 for one

person/month and approximately EUR 150-280 for a family/month.¹²⁵⁴

DRC Greece noted issues for beneficiaries of international protection in accessing social

benefits unless they could prove certain years of legal stay in Greece.¹²⁵⁵

On several occasions, UNHCR reiterated its concerns from 2019¹²⁵⁶ on the fact that

beneficiaries of subsidiary protection were entitled to a significantly lower level of basic

care.¹²⁵⁷

4.14.4.6. Housing

In several countries, for example, in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Portugal and

Spain, a lack of or limited social housing alternatives and a shortage of low-

cost housing made it difficult for beneficiaries of protection to find

accommodation.^{1258, 1259, 1260, 1261}

The general housing crisis in the Netherlands had a significant impact on the

outflow of recognised beneficiaries of international protection from the reception system (see

Section 4.7). Municipalities were given the task in spring 2022 to establish

13,500 accommodation places by the end of the year, but according to later forecasts, they

were expected to accommodate more than 20,000 by the end of 2022. For 2023, the target

was set between 20,400-23,900 persons. The establishment of a general Housing

Construction Programme was announced.¹²⁶² The Hotel and Accommodation Regulation was

extended until the end of 2022, offering funds for municipalities which arrange temporary

accommodation for beneficiaries in anticipation of their long-term housing.¹²⁶³

275

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

The Spanish Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migration, Bank Santander Foundation

and Accenture are developing a solidarity platform called "Techo" to help beneficiaries of

international protection and temporary protection find accommodation. The project will create

an NGO-managed database of apartments which are available for rent.¹²⁶⁴

Considering the risk of homelessness, the Higher Administrative Court in Baden-Württemberg

annulled the inadmissibility decision for an applicant and his wife, who were recognised as

beneficiaries of international protection in Greece. The court observed that they would not be

eligible for the HELIOS or ESTIA housing programmes, would not have access to social or

private housing, and the mere fact that civil society organisations provide some

accommodation does not mean that there would be sufficient housing capacity. The court

concluded that even healthy and able-bodied single men would face a real risk of

homelessness and a treatment contrary to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 4. As

this situation could persist for an unforeseen period, the court added that it was not relevant to

examine whether the applicant would have access to employment to cover his living needs.

276

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Section 4.15.

Resettlement and

humanitarian

admissions

Resettlement involves the selection

Resettlement and complementary

and transfer of refugees from a country

pathways for admission are an expression

in which they have sought protection

of international solidarity, involving several

to a third country which has agreed to

national and international stakeholders.

admit them as refugees with

EU resettlement schemes are based on

permanent residence status.^{lxii, 1265} In

national pledges corresponding to the

the EU context, resettlement

number of third-country nationals that

programmes are voluntary and

Member States commit to admit. They aim

persons in need of protection are

to manage migration based on predictable

identified as eligible by UNHCR.

timelines and ensure common grounds for

eligibility, while carrying out rigorous

security checks.

^lxii Practices at the EU+ level may vary in granting

refugee status and permanent residence in

resettlement cases.

277

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

After scaling back on resettlement activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries began

to gradually reactive programmes in 2021 and 2022. While new developments were not

identified in this field, countries continued efforts to fulfil their commitments. This required

adjusting priorities and programmes to the new challenges during the year, such as the

continued crisis in Afghanistan and the mass arrival of displaced persons from Ukraine.

The role of civil society organisations, private companies and faith groups was reinforced with

new agreements as they play an important role in the reception of resettled refugees and the

selection and referral process. To measure their impact, EU+ countries and civil society

organisations undertook evaluations and monitored programmes to identify lessons learned

and good practices.

4.15.1. Pledges for resettlement and humanitarian

admissions

EU resettlement schemes are based on national pledges

corresponding to the number of third-country nationals that

Member States commit to admit yearly. To support resettlement

efforts, every year the European Commission launches a pledging

exercise through AMIF,¹²⁶⁶ by which countries commit to receive a

certain number of refugees as part of resettlement and

humanitarian admission programmes. Although not all national

commitments are connected to AMIF funding, pledges submitted

to the European Commission give an idea of the overall number of

refugees to be received in the EU under these programmes in the

following year.

4.15.1.1. Annual pledging exercise

In October 2022, the European Commission published its report on migration

and asylum with the breakdown of pledges for the period 2021-2022.¹²⁶⁷ In

total, 15 countries agreed to resettle almost 30,000 refugees, in addition to

about 37,000 Afghans who were at risk during that period. In reality, however,

the number of refugees who were successfully resettled into the EU during

2021-2022 was considerably lower.¹²⁶⁸

At the end of November 2022, following the High-Level Forum on Legal Pathways to

Protection and Resettlement Cooperation,¹²⁶⁹ the European Commission published for the first

time the breakdown of country pledges for the following year, 2023.¹²⁷⁰ Although the number

of participating countries remained similar (16), countries reflected challenges encountered

in 2022 in their commitments. Thus, the overall number of refugees that countries committed

to receive under these programmes decreased significantly to about 29,000 refugees.

Additional countries - such as Bulgaria, Ireland and Slovakia - made pledges for 2023, but

the numbers did not balance the overall drop.

278

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Some countries intended to continue increasing their annual quotas as planned in their

national programmes. Belgium, for example, has been gradually increasing its quotas

since 2013, with 1,250 refugees pledged in 2022 and a promise to reach 1,400 people in 2023

and 1,500 people in 2024. However, due to the asylum and reception crisis, the 2022 quota

was not reached and the targets set for 2023 and 2024 were lowered. In October 2022,

Belgium pledged to resettle 500 refugees and to admit 125 people under humanitarian

admission programmes.

In Finland, selection missions were resumed in 2022, with an increased budget and quota

(about 500 additional refugees), making a total of 1,500 refugees pledged for 2022.¹²⁷¹

However, commitments for 2023 dropped to 1,075, around 400 fewer people than in 2022,

which meant returning to a pledge similar to 2021.

Following a decision of the new Swedish parliament, Sweden reduced its annual refugee

quota from 5,000 to 900 refugees for 2023.¹²⁷² France also adjusted its resettlement quota

from 5,000 to 3,000 for 2023, due to the arrival of more than 100,000 displaced persons from

Ukraine in 2022 and its commitments under the new Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism

(3,000 relocations by mid-2023), in a context of substantial increases in asylum applications.

The unprecedented shortage in reception places in the Netherlands also resulted in the

government’s decision on 26 August 2022 to temporarily pause resettlement selections out of

Turkey,¹²⁷³ which will have an impact on the Dutch quota for 2023. Under AMIF, the country

pledged 750 refugees under resettlement programmes, with no commitments to receive

refugees under humanitarian admissions programmes. This represents a quota of about

4,000 less refugees pledged than in the previous period (2021-2022 pledges).¹²⁷⁴

4.15.1.2. Implementing pledges

Several challenges were encountered by national administrations in

implementing their resettlement programmes in 2022, which had an impact

on national priorities in this area.

Some challenges were still linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as delays

in the selection of people previously referred by UNHCR¹²⁷⁵ and difficulties in

organising missions in certain geographical areas. Other challenges were directly due to

crises in national reception systems¹²⁷⁶ due to the mass arrival of displaced citizens of Ukraine

and the admission of hundreds of Afghan citizens at risk.

Some countries continue to face a major challenge with the reception crisis, resulting in a lack

of sufficient accommodation places for resettled refugees. After the suspension of the Belgian

resettlement programme in 2019 due to the lack of reception capacity, operations restarted

in 2021. However, Belgium re-announced a deceleration of the programme in April 2022.¹²⁷⁷

Consequently, Fedasil was exploring alternative reception models to support resettled

refugees upon their arrival, including the creation of a specific resettlement reception centre

in 2023 that would better withstand fluctuations in the overall reception network (see

Section 4.7). It also planned to launch an awareness-raising campaign for local authorities and

civil society organisations in the first quarter of 2023 to attract more reception partners for

resettled refugees.

279

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Similarly, the implementation of Dutch commitments was affected by shortages in housing.

In August 2022, the Dutch government announced several measures to alleviate the situation

in the national reception system (see Section 4.7). In this context, temporary measures were

introduced until the end of 2023, aimed at municipalities which are responsible for the

provision of housing to beneficiaries of international protection, including resettled

refugees.¹²⁷⁸

The new regulation for the national reception system for applicants and beneficiaries of

international protection, including resettled refugees¹²⁷⁹ (see Section 4.7), establishes different

conditions for the stay of resettled refugees in each reception phase. It becomes 6 months in

the first phase (reception phase) and a maximum of 12 months in the second phase (autonomy

phase).

Other impediments were related to the fragile security situation in some countries of first

asylum, making selection missions and the transfer of selected refugees difficult. This included

natural disasters such as the earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria. Other challenges related to the

management of expectations of refugees who are to be resettled, when misunderstandings

and frustration can arise for them and their families. Extra resources and additional efforts are

needed to provide sufficient information in these situations.¹²⁸⁰

In the face of these challenges, civil society organisations have stressed the need for national

administrations to urgently invest and prepare their systems, for instance, with long-term

planning of reception capacity and resettlement programming. Their resettlement

programmes would then not need to be placed on hold, delayed or suspended. In this

context, a joint statement was signed by several NGOs in June 2022, where several

recommendations were made for countries to increase their efforts in this area.¹²⁸¹

Several studies evaluating resettlement programmes were carried out during 2022. The Irish

Ministry for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth published a report, "Voices of

Syrians-Resettled Refugees in Ireland", in August 2022 which presents lessons to improve

future integration outcomes of resettled Syrian nationals. Key areas identified in the report

include planning, cooperation between stakeholders and housing security.¹²⁸²

Similarly, in the framework of the research project “Reorienting Integration” of the Aarhus

University, a report was published in November 2022 with key recommendations for national

authorities on the resettlement of Congolese refugees from Rwanda arriving in Denmark.¹²⁸³

New studies were already in the pipeline in some countries to optimise the implementation of

national programmes. In Belgium, Fedasil, with the support of the Migration Policy Institute

(MPI) Europe, is developing a monitoring and evaluation framework for their programmes, in

particular for community sponsorship schemes. The first results are expected by the end

of 2023.¹²⁸⁴

To assess integration capacity and the needs of resettled refugees, the German Research

Centre of BAMF will launch a 3-year research project in 2024. The study will cover

recommendations for decision-makers and contribute to the development of the

programmes.¹²⁸⁵

280

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

4.15.2. Complementary pathways for admission

Complementary pathways are safe and regulated avenues that

complement resettlement programmes by providing a lawful stay in a

third country where international protection needs are met. They are

additional to resettlement and do not substitute the protection afforded

to refugees under the international protection regime. Programmes are

diverse by nature and can benefit refugees in a variety of ways

depending on their specific objectives.¹²⁸⁶

4.15.2.1. Humanitarian admission programmes

Humanitarian admission programmes are complementary pathways to

international protection through which a country, following a referral from the

EUAA, UNHCR or another relevant international body, admits third-country

nationals or stateless persons from a third country to which they have been

forcibly displaced to the territory of the Member State. They are granted

international protection or a humanitarian status under national law, which

provides them rights and obligations equivalent to those of beneficiaries of subsidiary

protection, which are defined in the recast QD, Articles 20 to 34.¹²⁸⁷ Different practices prevail

in the implementation of these programmes at the national level.

During 2022, humanitarian admission programmes mainly focused on the arrival of

Afghan nationals at risk. While countries continued activities for the evacuation of Afghans

through humanitarian visas or other forms of protection, other countries developed new

programmes with the support of civil society organisations.

In Ireland, the deadline for applications for the Afghan Admission Programme was extended to

March 2022. It is an immigration programme which offers temporary residence to people at

risk who have family members in Ireland, whether resident in Afghanistan or neighbouring

countries where they fled since 1 August 2021. A total of 528 applications were received,

mainly from minors. The programme no longer accepts applications.

In Germany, a new federal admission programme was launched in October 2022 to approve

the admittance of around 1,000 vulnerable Afghan nationals per month. Under this

programme, submissions are done by authorised agencies and NGOs with experience in

Afghanistan, and not by UNCHR.¹²⁸⁸ The target group is Afghans who have exposed

themselves to a particular risk through their commitment to women’s and human rights or their

work in the spheres of justice, politics, the media, education, culture, sport or academia, and

are thus vulnerable. The programme also targets persons who are particularly vulnerable due

to their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or their religion. Special focus is placed on

serious individual women’s rights violations and homophobic or transphobic human rights

violations.¹²⁸⁹

A new Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Italian authorities and several

institutions, civil society organisations and international bodies, through which a new 2-year

humanitarian corridors programme was established to transfer 1,200 Afghans from Iran and

Pakistan. Th first group of people was received through this programme in July 2022.¹²⁹⁰

281

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Likewise, and based on experience from other countries, the Belgian State Secretary for

Migration and Asylum signed a Memorandum of Understanding in December 2021 with the

Sant’ Egidio community to start a humanitarian corridor during the period 2022-2024. The aim

was to resettle 250 vulnerable refugees residing in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya and Syria.

The quota established for 2022 was 75 people. However, the reception crisis in the country

delayed the start of the programme and the first group of refugees, 26 people, arrived only in

November 2022. In contrast to the process under resettlement programmes, under this

humanitarian corridor, beneficiaries follow the same path as regular applicants for

international protection.

In 2022, civil society organisations continued activities in close cooperation with the Italian

authorities, UNHCR and the IOM. Under existing humanitarian corridors programmes, they

transferred more than 1,200 people from Afghanistan, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon and Niger. A

new protocol for humanitarian corridors from Ethiopia, Jordan and Niger was signed by the

Italian Ministry of the Interior in October 2022, with the aim to provide 2 years of protection to

600 people in need.

4.15.2.2. Community sponsorship programmes

As a safe and legal pathway to protection, community-based sponsorship

programmes are gaining ground as an alternative to support refugees arriving

to EU+ countries. This type of programme allows individuals, private

companies and organisations to directly engage in financial, emotional and

practical support to refugees who are resettled in their communities.¹²⁹¹

Although some countries continued to rely on these initiatives as

complementary to their resettlement programmes, not many developments were identified

during 2022 in terms of community sponsorship programmes.

The EMN found that the main challenges encountered during the year were difficulties to find

new sponsor groups, insufficient involvement of municipalities, delays in transfers due to

medical reasons and administrative procedures, and questions on how to continue and scale

initiatives to more participants.¹²⁹²

In 2022, in the framework of a pilot project called "Univ'R", implemented with UNHCR and the

Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, France opened university corridors for 20 refugee

students. In addition, in 2022, France carried out the transfers of Syrians and Iraqis in need of

protection in Lebanon who were hosted by faith-based organisations under the humanitarian

corridors scheme, in line with protocols renewed in 2021.

In Germany, the federal government announced in July 2022 the consolidation of the

Neustart im Team (NesT) programme as of January 2023, after the 3-year pilot phase.¹²⁹³ The

programme is in addition to governmental humanitarian admission programmes, offering up to

200 places in 2023, with an increase planned in subsequent years. NesT is based on support

provided by mentoring groups (consisting of legal or natural people) who jointly finance and

provide accommodation and non-material support to participants.¹²⁹⁴ As the programme

became permanent, adjustments were made based on the experience of the pilot phase, such

as shortening the funding for suitable housing from 2 years to 1 year. After the pandemic-

related delays in taking in refugees and the concentration of volunteer involvement in

Germany on the refugees from Ukraine in 2021, current efforts focus on the recruitment of

282

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

new mentoring groups. Further findings can be found in the formative evaluation of the

programme by the BAMF Research Centre.¹²⁹⁵

Several initiatives were developed by civil society organisations to overcome some of the

challenges and further develop different programmes. The 3-year programme, EU-Passworld,

emerged in 2022, linking community sponsorship to labour and education pathways.

The AMIF-funded project will be implemented by a multi-stakeholder consortium in Belgium,

Ireland and Italy, where new complementary programmes will be designed and piloted to

create a minimum of 200 new places for refugees.¹²⁹⁶

Some evaluation reports were published during the year to assess challenges, in combination

with an analysis of good practices and lessons learned. For instance, in its report on

monitoring and the evaluation of community sponsorship programmes in Belgium, France,

Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, the organisation Share Network issued

a series of recommendations to support the development of new programmes and enhance

the quality and sustainability of current ones.¹²⁹⁷ Furthermore, to support countries with the

planning and implementation of their community sponsorship programmes, the Global

Refugee for Sponsorship Initiatives (GRSI) developed a monitoring and evaluation toolkit

which is available for national administrations and stakeholders involved in the programmes

since October 2022.¹²⁹⁸

Box 7. Return of former applicants

The EU legal framework on the return of former applicants for international protection

falls within the remit of general immigration law. An effective and humane return of

rejected asylum seekers is an integral part of a credible asylum system, as is the

possibility to return to a country of origin voluntarily if an application for international

protection is withdrawn. For the practical functioning of CEAS, returning a rejected

asylum applicant effectively to the country of origin is essential, since an inability to

return such a person in an efficient and sustainable way may corrode confidence in the

system and stigmatise migration. Indeed, Frontex has identified several risks and

challenges leading to a widening gap between return decisions and effective returns.¹²⁹⁹

Return options include:

Voluntary return and departure: when a person withdraws a claim and

voluntarily returns to the country of origin (voluntary return) or a person

complies with a return decision (voluntary departure); and

Forced return/removal: the return of persons who are required by law to leave

but have not consented to do so and who are subject to coercion in order to

carry out the removal.

In many cases, returnees can receive support under assisted return schemes prior to

departure. In addition, reintegration support is available after arrival to the country of

return in various forms.

283

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Relevant publications

EMN, Inform on Incentives and motives for voluntary departure was

published in July 2022. It covers the reasons for accepting, or refusing, available

assistance for a voluntary departure. As such, incentives are currently not usually

developed to target specific motivations.

FRA, Forced return monitoring systems - 2022 update: Since 2014, FRA publishes an

annual update on forced return monitoring systems that EU Member States have set

up under Article 8(6) of the recast Return Directive (2008/115/EC).

ECRE Policy Note: Monitoring the Implementation of Returns: A Complex Puzzle with

Missing Pieces: The note addresses that there is no specific, independent monitoring

framework to report on fundamental rights compliance by Member States that covers

pre-return, the return process as well as follow-up in and with the country of return.

Relevant developments in 2022

ERRIN came to an end on 30 June 2022 and has now been taken over by the Frontex

Joint Reintegration Programme and the ICMPD Return and Reintegration Facility (RRF).

Initiatives to support voluntary returns were launched in Austria,¹³⁰⁰ Finland,¹³⁰¹ Greece,

lxiii

Norway,¹³⁰²

Lithuania¹³⁰³ and Italy.

Legislative changes concerning relevant procedures were reported in Romania.¹³⁰⁴

Civil society organisations raised concerns over the expulsion procedure, for example in

Bulgaria.

Bilateral agreements were signed to enhance cooperation with third countries in

Lithuania¹³⁰⁵ and Greece.

lxiii

The Central Control Section on the management of State Administrations of the Court of Auditors published a

report on “Voluntary and assisted repatriation in the management of migratory flows” on 12 May 2022. The

document outlined the state of play and the evolution of assisted voluntary returns in Italy, including experiences of

other EU countries. It is accompanied by a long series of data on migration flows and on forced and voluntary

returns. The Court of Auditors included some final recommendations. Court of Auditors, Il rimpatrio volontario ed

assistito nella gestione dei flussi migratori, 12 May 2022, available at:

https://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/AnteprimaPDF.aspx?id=3469

284

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The situation of children and

applicants with special needs are

described in Section 5.

The section combines quantitative,

Section 5.

qualitative, and legal information to

provide an overview of the situation

Children and

for minors, women, victims of violence

and human trafficking, and lesbian,

people

gay, bisexual, trans-gender, intersex

and queer (LGBTIQ) asylum

with special needs

applicants. The section focuses in

particular on unaccompanied minors,

in the asylum

reviewing changes to legal

representation, age assessments and

procedure

reception conditions.

To include diverse perspectives,

observations by civil society

organisations and other stakeholders

are presented throughout the report

by topic. In 2022, concerns often

centred around access to the asylum

procedure, reception conditions and

applicants with special needs.

285

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

EU legislation contains provisions to address the special needs of applicants who may be

considered particularly vulnerable in the asylum system. These provisions ensure that

vulnerable applicants receive adequate support to benefit from their rights and comply with

the obligations which are defined under CEAS so that they can be on an equal footing with

other applicants.

The recast APD, Article 2(d) defines applicants in need of special procedural guarantees as

those with a limited ability to benefit from rights and fulfil the obligations granted in the

directive due to individual circumstances. Recital 29 gives examples of these

circumstances: age; gender; sexual orientation; gender identity; disability; serious illness;

mental disorders; consequences of torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological;

and physical or sexual violence.

The term ‘unaccompanied minor’ refers to “a minor who arrives on the territory of the

Member State unaccompanied by the adult responsible for them by law or by the practice

of the Member State concerned, and for as long as they are not taken into the care of such

a person. It includes a minor who is left unaccompanied after he/she has entered the

territory of the Member State”.

The recast APD, Article 24 outlines the special procedural guarantees for applicants in

general, and Article 25 specifies the guarantees for unaccompanied minors. Member

States are required to assess within a reasonable time whether there is a need to

implement these guarantees for individual applicants and provide adequate support.

The recast RCD defines applicants with special reception needs. It also lists examples,

which are non-exhaustive, but they cover a slightly different scope. It explicitly mentions

unaccompanied minors, single parents with minor children, victims of human trafficking and

victims of FGM, but it does not refer to gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Detailed provisions are listed in the recast RCD, Chapter IV and require Member States to

take into account the specific situation of a vulnerable applicant, assess vulnerabilities

within a reasonable period and ensure that the needs are addressed. Chapter IV also lists

specific provisions for minors, unaccompanied minors and victims of torture and violence.

Article 11 lists the conditions for detaining vulnerable persons and applicants with special

reception needs.

All instruments of the EU asylum acquis must be applied and interpreted by taking into

consideration the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as it is part of

primary EU law. Article 24 of the Charter concerns the rights of the child and specifies that

children have the right to protection and care as necessary for their well-being. The right to

express their view freely and have them taken into consideration are also guaranteed. In all

actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the

child's best interests must be a primary consideration. Every child has the right to maintain

a personal relationship and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, unless it is

contrary to the child’s interests.

286

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Since persons in need of temporary protection comprised mainly women and children,

EU+ countries needed to adjust their support services in 2022, which were generally geared

towards applicants for international protection who are predominantly men.¹³⁰⁶ Women and

children fleeing Ukraine were at a heightened risk of being trafficked, so several

EU+ countries revised legislation, policies and practices on prevention and identifying victims

more rapidly and providing them with adequate support.¹³⁰⁷

With the increased arrivals of both persons in need of international and temporary protection,

the majority of EU+ countries needed to mobilise additional resources - staff, budget,

reception places and experts - to meet the new demand in needs. The dramatic situation in

reception (see Section 4.7.) meant that identifying special needs and offering timely

accommodation and support to the most vulnerable became even more challenging. In

addition, several Member States and civil society organisations noted that applicants for

international protection arrived in the EU in worse states of health than in previous years.

Undue delays in the asylum procedure (see Section 4.4.) can negatively impact the integration

prospectives of vulnerable applicants and children (see Section 4.14.).

Compared to 2021, even more countries reported an alarming increase in the number of

unaccompanied children, putting a strain on specific processes, such as appointing a

guardian, assessing the age of self-proclaimed minors, remaining within the time limits for

processing and providing adequate material reception conditions and support.

5.1. Comprehensive approaches to identify and support

children and applicants with special needs

The German BAMF published updated methodology for the identification of

vulnerable persons in the asylum procedure, which provides detailed

guidance and identifies special procedural guarantees. In addition, the

organisation developed two forms for transmitting data to ensure that

information flows rapidly to the authorities responsible at the federal and

federal-state levels.¹³⁰⁸

In Portugal, a new sub-working group was established to foster cooperation and coordination

between stakeholders involved in the identification and referral of applicants with special

needs. The sub-group is organised under the umbrella of the Single Operative Group,

established in 2020 to improve cooperation in general in the asylum procedure, reception and

integration.

The Icelandic Ministry of Education established a steering group on refugee children’s issues.

The group was tasked to monitor the situation of refugee children, provide advice, assess

government measures and ensure that measures are aligned with international standards.¹³⁰⁹

The UN Human Rights Committee issued its Concluding Observations on Ireland with

recommendations. It requested the government to establish a robust system of vulnerability

assessments.¹³¹⁰

A legislative proposal amending the Refugee Act was approved by the Council of Ministers in

Cyprus. If adopted by the parliament, the Asylum Service will be obliged to obtain a health

care professional’s advice for an applicant’s ability to be interviewed.¹³¹¹ The Cyprus Refugee

288

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

Council underlined that standard operating procedures and referral pathways were still

lacking, even though authorities were working on their elaboration. The organisation

acknowledged that in the meantime the vulnerability team conducts regular meetings to

discuss challenges and harmonise approaches on identification and follow-up.¹³¹²

Face-to-face training was co-organised by OFPRA, UNHCR, and the Asylum Directorate with

the participation of the Red Cross for various stakeholders working with unaccompanied

minors in France. The Asylum Directorate developed an online version of the training, which

would be deployed soon. The directorate also financed training courses organised by

specialised partners. In addition, the Themis association launched a guide to the asylum

procedure for unaccompanied minors in February 2022 with the financial support of the

French Ministry of the Interior. Training for reception staff on vulnerabilities was ongoing, with

three regions covered in 2022.

The Greek RIS, with support from the EUAA, created and deployed a team of case

management reception assistants for reception facilities under its responsibility throughout

Greece. Their task was to ensure the identification of needs, referral and follow-up for all

persons residing in reception facilities. A standard operating procedure was drafted to create

a harmonised system for case management in first- and second-line reception. The NGO

Network for Children’s Rights highlighted gaps in the identification of vulnerable applicants

after the launch of the online registration platform for applying for international protection (see

Section 4.1). The organisation encouraged the relevant ministry to set up an identification

system that addresses these gaps.¹³¹³ The Greek Council for Refugees observed delays in

vulnerability assessments and referrals, which led to applicants being interviewed prior to

establishing their eventual specific needs.¹³¹⁴

On 31 December 2022, the ESTIA II scheme - designed to accommodate vulnerable

applicants - ended in Greece. Applicants were transferred to larger mainland structures.¹³¹⁵

Several civil society organisations and UNHCR expressed their concern about the modalities

of the move and the fact that the needs of vulnerable applicants could not be adequately

addressed in larger facilities (see Section 4.7.).¹³¹⁶

The Human Rights Committee of the Seimas in Lithuania discussed the situation of applicants,

and its chairperson highlighted that the committee had repeatedly raised the lack of

vulnerability assessment criteria as an issue. The committee also noted that psychological

support was rarely available in reception facilities.¹³¹⁷ The Lithuanian Red Cross published a

thematic monitoring report on the rights of vulnerable groups in reception and detention

centres. The organisation concluded that the availability of vulnerability assessments and

support services significantly improved in the second half of 2022, due to a decrease in the

number of residents, newly-employed specialists and the freedom of movement which

allowed foreigners to choose the services independently. However, it noted that the newly-

established reception agency should design an effective system for identifying

vulnerabilities.¹³¹⁸

The Danish Immigration Service launched a tender for providing accommodation to applicants

who cannot receive the necessary support within ordinary reception centres. These profiles

include applicants suffering from mental and physical disabilities, substance abuse, trauma or

mental illness. This service was previously offered by a different service provider, but the

Immigration Service did not renew the contract due to unsatisfactory collaboration.¹³¹⁹ The

new centre, operated by the Red Cross, started operating in Sjælsmark as a separate,

independent centre from the already-existing ordinary reception facility.¹³²⁰

289

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

The Romanian Ombudsperson carried out visits to several reception facilities throughout

2022. In Marumures-Somcuta Mare, recommendations were made to organise training for

staff on identifying and supporting persons with special needs.¹³²¹ In Giurgiu, the

Ombudsperson recommended adjustments to make all areas accessible for persons with

physical disabilities and set up a special, fully-accessible room for their accommodation.¹³²²

Improving vulnerable applicants’ reception conditions and support, the Romanian National

Council for Refugees (CNRR) and AIDRom launched the second part of their AMIF-funded

project, “Complex social assistance for asylum applicants”. Among other services, the project

offers accommodation and support to vulnerable applicants in Bucharest and Timișoara for a

maximum of 6 months.¹³²³

The Italian NGO Don Bosco 2000 launched its Child Safeguarding Policy, which ensures that

all staff are specifically trained and their work is adequately monitored.¹³²⁴

Input from the Swiss NGO Platform for Human Rights to the Universal Periodic Review of

Switzerland highlighted gaps in the detection of applicants with special needs and suggested

to address these through the involvement of trained translators and systematic access to

medical care.¹³²⁵ Asylex added that follow-up measures and referral to medical professionals

were particularly sporadic for applicants in the Dublin procedure.¹³²⁶

The AIDA report for Bulgaria highlighted persisting gaps in the identification of applicants’

vulnerabilities at registration and their follow-up during the asylum procedure. The report

notes, for example, that social reports are prepared for unaccompanied children, but these are

rarely shared with asylum case officers.¹³²⁷

The Finnish Non-Discrimination Ombudsperson launched a project monitoring the

identification of and support to vulnerable persons in return procedures. The project aims to

help authorities develop structure and guidance in the preparation for the return of a

vulnerable person, since the Ombudsperson identified some weaknesses in previous

monitoring projects.¹³²⁸

In Belgium, in addition to efforts made by national authorities (see Sections 5.2 and 5.6), the

civil society organisation NANSEN organised a workshop on several dimensions of special

needs, including applicants with disabilities, applicants with health issues, victims of torture

and LGBTIQ+ applicants.¹³²⁹

5.2. Protecting women and girls

In 2022, the EUAA published COI focusing on FGM/C in Mali¹³³⁰ and in

Ethiopia (see Section 4.12).¹³³¹ EIGE announced new research to map

applicant and beneficiary women’s access to specialised health care

services, in particular related to reproduction and sexual health. The

outcome of the research is planned to be published in 2023.¹³³²

On the occasion of International Women’s Day, the Belgian CGRS provided

an overview of the authority’s activities related to supporting women and girl applicants. The

gender unit, which was created in 2005 and operates through geographical and horizontal

sections of the CGRS, is involved in designing the content of draft directives. These aim to

290

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

advise protection officers and identify and relay their needs to better manage these files, as

well as to monitor the quality of files related to gender.¹³³³

The Luxembourgish government adopted a proactive approach to raise awareness about the

impact of FGM/C. The ONA has collaborated with the Group for the Abolition of Female

Genital Mutilation since 2017, and training on this profile of applicants is compulsory for staff

working with women and girls in reception.

In accordance with the Swedish government’s national strategy for preventing and combating

men’s violence against women, the SMA continued its collaboration with other national

authorities in various government assignments. Efforts mainly focused on training staff and

adequately informing applicants. The agency’s website includes information on domestic

violence and support sources, in order to encourage women to seek support.

The Council of Europe’s Expert Group on Action against Violence against Women and

Domestic Violence (GREVIO) published its baseline evaluation report on Switzerland in

November 2022. The group encouraged Swiss authorities to improve the identification of

cases of violence against applicant women and assess whether countries of origin are able to

provide effective protection.¹³³⁴

The implementation of the Spanish Protocol against Gender Violence in the Reception System

continued,¹³³⁵ with support from UNHCR¹³³⁶ and NGOs, such as CEAR.¹³³⁷

French authorities focused on the creation of suitable accommodation and since 2020,

300 reception places were made available for female applicants who were victims of violence

or trafficking.

In Lithuania, the Vilnius Regional Prosecutors Office launched a pre-trial investigation into the

sexual abuse of residents in one of the foreigners’ registration centres by an

SBGS employee.¹³³⁸

In H.M. and others v Hungary, among other issues (see Sections 4.8 and 5.6.5), the court

observed that a pregnant mother had received the necessary medical attention. Nonetheless,

the constraints she had to suffer during the advanced stage of her pregnancy (such as the

conditions in the transit zone, as well as seeing her husband handcuffed and on a leash)

resulted in anxiety and mental issues that were serious enough to find a violation of the ECHR,

Article 3.

The Austrian Supreme Administrative Court referred two questions to the CJEU for a

preliminary ruling (C-608/22 and C-609/22), inquiring whether the situation of Afghan women

in their country of origin could be regarded as sufficiently severe to qualify as persecution.

The court also asked whether it is enough that a woman is affected by the measures merely

on the basis of gender or if her individual situation still needs to be assessed.

In Denmark, the Coordination Committee of the Refugee Appeals Board decided to change its

approach to women and girls from Afghanistan at the end of January 2023. They may now be

granted international protection solely on the basis of their gender.¹³³⁹

The CNDA granted international protection to a woman, holding that she belonged to the

particular social groups of Ethiopian women and girls having escaped forced marriage and

Ethiopian women, adolescent and children of Amhara ethnicity at risk of FGM/C. The court

291

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

underlined that the authorities in the country of origin were powerless to provide effective

protection to victims.

In another case, the court granted international protection to a young girl, recognising she

belonged to the particular social group of Egyptian women and children who are exposed to

the risk of FGM/C. The court also considered that her maternal aunts supported this practice

and that her father, a refugee in France, would be unable to protect her. The CNDA was also

asked to review the case of a woman whose application based on a risk of forced marriage

and FGM/C was rejected at first instance, but on appeal, she claimed that her daughter, born

after the first instance decision, had her own fears of persecution due to FGM/C. The court

observed the absence of special provisions for this situation and concluded that the child’s

claims should be examined in a separate, child-specific asylum application.

The NGO NANSEN published an analysis of jurisprudence related to FGM/C in Belgium. The

organisation noted that authorities provide protection to women and girls in a broad manner,

but a more coherent approach is needed to address these claims.¹³⁴⁰ In their shadow report

on the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDAW), NANSEN made recommendations on how the authorities can

improve the use of medical reports in FGM/C cases.¹³⁴¹

The Irish High Court quashed IPAT’s decision on a claim by a Nigerian family whose daughters

were at risk of FGM/C by family members if returned. The tribunal did not consider all

documents submitted by the applicants, did not determine the validity of one document and

incorrectly stated that the piece of document was post-dated after their departure for Ireland.

The Federal Administrative Court in Austria concluded that having to watch one’s daughter

undergoing FGM/C amounts to the parent’s persecution.¹³⁴² The Danish Refugee Appeals

Board reopened the case of a woman whose daughter was at risk of FGM/C in Somalia,

following a communication from the UNCRC in 2021. The committee had assessed that the

board failed to consider the best interests of the child and ensure the child’s well-being upon

a return. The board considered the parents’ will and ability to withstand social pressure and

noted that the girl’s father resided in the United States and her mother would need to face the

pressure on her own. Thus, the board concluded that the girl would be at risk of FGM/C and

should be given a residence permit.

The Danish Refugee Board reopened another case, following a communication from the

UNCRC in 2022. In that case, the committee disagreed with the board’s original conclusions

that the applicant and her daughter could receive state protection in India against the

husband’s violence. The committee reiterated concerns about widespread violence, abuse

and neglect, the lack of implementation of the Domestic Violence Act and the deeply-

entrenched patriarchal attitudes of police officers, prosecutors and judges who handle

domestic violence cases. Consequently, the Danish Refugee Board re-examined the case and

concluded that the applicant and her daughter would be in a concrete and individual risk of

abuse if returned to India.

The Irish High Court sent back a case to IPAT, as it failed to adequately consider the need for

a hearing in the case of an applicant who was a victim of domestic violence in Georgia. The

court acknowledged that there was no statutory right to a hearing in an appeal for applicants

from a safe country of origin. However, in the particular case, the applicant submitted

additional written evidence and IPAT modified its reasoning for the rejection compared to the

292

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

IPO, but without allowing the applicant to clarify some additional adverse findings. In addition,

IPAT did not make a reference to the applicant’s request to submit further medical evidence.

The court sent back a similar case to IPAT, as it was unclear how the tribunal approached the

concept of a safe country of origin and the availability of state protection for another victim of

domestic violence from Georgia. In a third case, the High Court quashed IPAT’s decision to

reject the claim of a victim of sexual abuse and rape in Georgia. The court found that IPAT was

incorrect in concluding that the applicant was not credible, as her husband did not mention

this attack in his own international protection claim and she had not sought to call him as a

witness.

When authorities assess the availability of internal protection alternatives for victims of

domestic violence, the Supreme Administrative Court in Lithuania held that they must

specifically examine what consequences the applicant may face if she requested assistance.

The Dutch Court of The Hague considered that the authorities did not sufficiently investigate a

case and required an extreme threshold from a female rape victim to decide that Armenia was

a safe country of origin in her specific case. The court underlined that the police would have

been the competent authority to investigate, and complaining to the Ombudsperson or to the

public prosecutor service was not an adequate way to prevent imminent danger.

The High Administrative Court of Lüneburg in Germany rejected the appeal of a female

Eritrean victim of violence who sought refugee status instead of subsidiary protection. The

court concluded that women in the Eritrean national service who are victims of sexual assault

do not constitute a particular social group, as a clearly defined identity is missing and they are

not regarded as different by the rest of the society.

The Irish High Court confirmed IPAT’s decision to reject an application from a mother and

daughter from Zimbabwe, claiming that the father would subject the daughter to forced

marriage. The court noted that the applicant’s general credibility must be established, so that

the benefit of doubt could be applied for undocumented aspects of a claim, and the applicant

in this case failed to show the burden of proof which was resting on her.

The Tribunal of Genova in Italy overturned the first instance authority’s decision and granted

international protection to a victim of trafficking from Nigeria. Contrary to the asylum authority,

it considered that the applicant’s statements were sufficiently detailed and credible, while the

anti-trafficking centre highlighted several indicators which supported that the woman was a

victim of forced prostitution. The tribunal noted that these elements also explained the

woman’s evasive behaviour and contradictions in her story.

In Austria, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that even a very general, unspecified

fear of sexual assault would allow an applicant to request a case officer of a certain sex, as

provided by law. This specific provision was analysed in detail in light of recent jurisprudence

on Blog Asyl.¹³⁴³

293

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

5.3. Applicants with disabilities and special health

needs

The reconstruction of the reception facility in Humenné in Slovakia finished in

2022, making the facility completely barrier-free. In Czechia, the OPU noted

that only one centre was barrier-free in 2022, while the Ministry of the Interior

noted that in the beginning of 2023, two centres were functioning as barrier-

free. The OPU observed that centres struggled to ensure that qualified

nurses and doctors provide services to applicants with physical disabilities

within the public insurance framework.¹³⁴⁴

The Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare published a multilingual video series on mental

health for applicants and beneficiaries of international protection. The videos aim to increase

the understanding of mental health and reduce the stigma associated with seeking help.

Beneficiaries themselves participated in the elaboration of the videos (see Section 4.14).¹³⁴⁵

Asylos and the ARC Foundation set up a joint research project to address information gaps in

COI research about applicants with disabilities and published suggestions to improve

disability-focused COI (see Section 4.12).¹³⁴⁶

The CJEU clarified that the non-voluntary committal of an applicant to a hospital psychiatric

department was not considered to be imprisonment for the purposes of extending the transfer

time limit under the Dublin III Regulation (see Sections 2.6, 4.2 and 4.8).

The Swedish Migration Court of Appeal examined the case of an applicant with a hearing

impairment who may have also suffered from multiple other disabilities. The court noted

several flaws in the process, including the fact that the investigation of the applicant’s

additional disabilities was still ongoing. From the notes of the interview, it was clear that the

applicant had difficulties in understanding the question or simply imitated the interpreters,

even though his legal representative, two deaf interpreters and two sign interpreters were

present.

The French Council of State referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on issues

related to the interpretation of the limits of UNRWA’s protection and assistance, and the

possibility of qualifying or being excluded from international protection. The case concerned

an applicant with a genetic disease who required regular blood transfusions and a specific

medication, but the UNRWA refused to supply the medication due to its high costs.

The Supreme Court of Cassation in Italy delivered a judgment clarifying the credibility

assessment when an applicant has suffered physical or mental trauma from torture. The court

underlined that the assessment should follow the criteria set in the Istanbul Protocol¹³⁴⁷ and

that the medico-legal expert report must be considered in conjunction with the applicant’s

statements, country of origin information and other documentary evidence brought to the

attention of the authority.

The Tribunal of Bari confirmed the rejection of international protection but still granted

humanitarian protection to an applicant from Pakistan who suffered from a serious mental

condition. The applicant submitted medical certificates to attest his condition and evidence

that he could not access the necessary treatment in his country of origin.

294

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The Irish High Court quashed IPAT’s decision for an applicant with albinism. The court noted

that country of origin information was not available in full length, but the information available

should be considered as supporting the claim.

Medical conditions were also considered by courts when assessing transfers to specific

countries under the Dublin III Regulation (see Section 4.2.6). Another category of cases

involved the examination of medical conditions when adopting a return decision or

implementing a return.

The CJEU ruled that Member States cannot adopt or implement a return decision when the

person would be at real risk of a rapid, significant and permanent increase in pain caused by

an illness due to the fact that appropriate care was not available in the country of origin (see

Section 2.6).

The UNCRC condemned the Swiss authorities for not taking all the necessary steps to ensure

that a child with a hearing impairment would receive appropriate medical care upon return to

the country of origin.

The Austrian Federal Administrative Court confirmed the return order of a rejected Nigerian

applicant, noting that his prescribed medication and treatment are available in his country of

origin. Return assistance would allow him to obtain the treatment for at least 10 years.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court gave guidance on assessing the return of a family with

minor children who obtained international protection in Greece, while several family members

suffered from different medical conditions. The court underlined that the authorities should

examine the health claims, the services and assistance already received in Greece, and

whether favourable conditions exist for their return, such as the length of stay in Greece,

language knowledge and the existence of a support network.

5.4. Seeking protection and receiving support in

reception for applicants with diverse SOGIESC

The German BAMF reviewed its internal instructions and clarified some

aspects of cases lodged by LGBTIQ applicants. When examining the risks, it

must be assumed that the applicant would be able to openly live their sexual

orientation or gender identity in the country of origin. Specially-trained case

officers for gender-specific persecution were informed and sensitised on

applying the amended instructions.¹³⁴⁸ The Higher Administrative Court of

Baden-Württemberg underlined the importance of this approach. It noted that the fact that the

applicant could avoid persecution by secretly living his homosexuality by holding back or even

renouncing a sex life must be considered irrelevant because the wording of the recast QD

does not differentiate between clandestine and non-clandestine conduct. Homosexuality is an

identity-forming part of the applicant’s personality, which would expose him to degrading

living conditions due to his sexual orientation. The AIDA report for Germany expressed

concerns over the situation of LGBTIQ applicants in collective reception centres, citing several

reports which document harassment and attacks.¹³⁴⁹

On the same issue, UNHCR intervened as a third party before the ECtHR in the case of M.I. v

Switzerland. In its submission, UNHCR underlined that denying refugee status by compelling

295

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

individuals to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity may have a serious impact on

both mental and physical health and could lead to an unbearable situation amounting to

persecution.¹³⁵⁰

In 2022, French authorities made more than 200 reception places available for vulnerable

LGBTIQ applicants. The Maltese civil society organisation, aditus foundation, launched the

#Safe4All legal initiative for the protection of LGBTIQ asylum seekers. The organisation

proposed an amendment to legislation to ensure that countries that criminalise

LGBTIQ communities should not be assessed as safe countries of origin.¹³⁵¹

A group of 37 NGOs sent a joint letter to the Greek authorities to share their observations on

the difficulties faced by LGBTIQ applicants in the asylum procedure and in reception, and

made recommendations to improve the situation. For example, the organisations found

several examples of stereotypical questions in interview transcripts that do not seem to

respect European and Greek standards, which suggest that case officers had not received

adequate training on assessing applications based on sexual orientation.¹³⁵²

The NGO QueerBase analysed CJEU and national case law to expose biases that some

national authorities may still have towards LGBTIQ refugees, including an expectation that

LGBTIQ applicants should live and express their sexual orientation openly. The analysis

underlines earlier judgments from the CJEU and the Austrian Constitutional Court that the

form of expression of one’s sexual orientation in the host country or in the country of origin is

not a relevant factor. The decisive element is whether an LGBTIQ applicant could live openly

in their country of origin without a risk of persecution.¹³⁵³

The Cyprus Refugee Council observed inconsistencies in the approach to the assessment of

applications based on sexual orientation or gender identity. For example, the organisation

noted that, while case officers used the suggested DSSH (difference, stigma, shame, harm)

model during interviews, they often used closed questions instead of open ones.¹³⁵⁴

The civil society organisation NANSEN analysed the CGRS COI on LGBTIQ in Jordan, noting

discrepancies between the sources used and the conclusions drawn in decisions on asylum

applications.¹³⁵⁵

The Organisation Intersex International Europe highlighted the specific needs of intersex

applicants in reception, especially in ensuring access to health care without discrimination.¹³⁵⁶

The French CNDA delivered two significant judgments and granted international protection to

an applicant from Iraq and another from Tunisia based on their sexual orientation. In both

cases, the court recognised that members of the LGBTIQ community formed a particular social

group.

The Dutch Council of State referred a case back to the lower court, as it did not adequately

consider the report, “LGBTI Asylum Support”. The lower court took the report into account, but

it did not clarify what classification it attached to the report. If it was considered to be an

expert report, the authorities could deviate from its findings only with due justification.

The Irish High Court confirmed IPAT’s rejection of an applicant from Nigeria who claimed to be

perceived as homosexual. The court agreed that the claim was coherent and consistent with

country of origin information and not implausible, but it lacked specificity and detail. His

answers regarding his travel were implausible, vague and evasive, so the court doubted his

credibility and confirmed that the benefit of doubt could not be applied in his favour.

296

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

The court also confirmed IPAT’s negative credibility finding for an applicant from Zimbabwe,

who stated that his two brothers were arrested for being gay, and a few days later the

applicant’s mother received an arrest warrant stating that the applicant was wanted by the

police based on his perceived sexual orientation. The court noted concerns related to the

authenticity of the arrest warrant and inconsistencies in his overall claim. The court ruled on

several other cases related to the credibility assessment of applicants claiming international

protection based on sexual orientation, for example, for applicants from Georgia and Pakistan.

The Belgian CALL concluded that vulnerabilities were not adequately assessed in the

authorisation to stay (a national form of protection) of a minor who revealed his sexual

orientation during the procedure. The approach of the nuclear family members should have

been considered in a nuanced manner. In addition, the court found that the authorities did not

adequately consider country of origin information and the specific situation of members of the

LGBTIQ community.

The Brussels Labour Tribunal ordered Fedasil to provide suitable accommodation in a

medium- or small-scale facility for an applicant who was assessed to be particularly vulnerable

due to his sexual orientation and multiple traumatic experiences. The applicant was at first

accommodated in a collective centre, sharing a room with persons who were hostile against

the LGBTIQ community. He was then re-allocated to another large collective centre, without

consideration for the medical recommendations from the doctor who confirmed his PTSD and

suicidal state. The applicant had an anxiety attack in the new facility and had to be

hospitalised.

5.5. Identifying and supporting survivors of human

trafficking

Combatting the trafficking of human beings remained at the forefront of

discussions in 2022 as a shift in patterns was noted.¹³⁵⁷ The COVID-19

pandemic had spurred exploiters to turn increasingly to online activities,

which made it more difficult to identify and protect victims.¹³⁵⁸ Traffickers also

began to target new travel routes to recruit victims.This was in part due to the

Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 which created waves of

displaced persons - notably women and children - who were particularly prone to falling

victim to trafficking. See the EUAA’s “Identifying and supporting victims of human trafficking in

the asylum procedure, Situational Update No 17” for more detailed developments in 2022.

The EU Strategy on Combatting Trafficking in Human Beings 2021-2025 covers various

aspects, including prevention, protection, the empowerment of victims and bringing traffickers

to justice. One of its key actions includes the evaluation and a possible revision of the Anti-

Trafficking Directive. In December 2022, the European Commission proposed to revise the

directive, by streamlining structures and procedures in the EU and formalising national referral

mechanisms to improve early identification and referral. These would then serve as a basis for

developing a European Referral Mechanism (see Section 2).¹³⁵⁹

Gaps in data continued to be a challenge, preventing policymakers to have a clear picture of

the scope of the situation in the EU. While Eurostat publishes annual statistics on the number

of registered victims as reported by EU Member States,¹³⁶⁰ not all countries report data, they

may use different reporting approaches or different levels of transposition of the Anti-

297

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR ASYLUM

Trafficking Directive.¹³⁶¹ The revisions of the directive propose to address the lack of data on

human trafficking by formalising a reliable EU-wide data collection which would be conducted

and published by Eurostat.¹³⁶² During 2023, the European Parliament and the Council will

examine this proposal, and once approved, the new rules will have to be transposed by

Member States into their national laws.¹³⁶³

Enhanced cooperation plays a crucial role in combatting trafficking. In this context, the

European Commission and Morocco renewed their operational partnership, which involves

border management support and awareness-raising on the dangers of unlawful migration to

tackle human trafficking.¹³⁶⁴

The Council of Europe’s GRETA published various reports during 2022, namely on France,¹³⁶⁵

Luxembourg,¹³⁶⁶ Ireland,¹³⁶⁷ Latvia,¹³⁶⁸ Norway,¹³⁶⁹ Portugal¹³⁷⁰ and Belgium.¹³⁷¹ Overall, the

reports call for additional efforts to identify victims and provide assistance.

The European Migration Network (EMN) published a study in March 2022 which maps national

practices in detection, identification and protection of third-country nationals who are victims

of trafficking in human beings. National reports for 18 Member States for 2021 were

subsequently released throughout 2022.¹³⁷²

5.5.1. Policy, legislative and judicial developments at the national level

In 2022, EU+ countries introduced policy and legislative changes to better

identify, refer and protect victims. For example, the French Ministry of the

Interior published an instruction in April 2022 requesting the prefects to

harmonise practices related to victims who were trafficked for sexual

exploitation.¹³⁷³ The Romanian government approved a national identification

and referral mechanism for victims of human trafficking in January 2023.¹³⁷⁴

Italy adopted a National Action Plan 2022-2025 with long-term strategies and actions aimed

at raising awareness, better prevention and the social integration of victims of trafficking.¹³⁷⁵ In

line with this, Italy’s civil courts granted protection to two Nigerian women who were victims of

sexual exploitation and prostitution, as they would either risk an act of persecution on grounds

of membership of a particular social group or be re-trafficked if returned to the country of

origin (see here and here). In another case, a male trafficking victim from Nigeria, initially

excluded from refugee protection, was recognised as eligible for subsidiary protection since

he could suffer inhuman or degrading treatment by his family after having been a victim of

human trafficking.

In Austria, the Constitutional Court ruled on the link between being the victim of human

trafficking and belonging to a particular social group, and confirmed that a Nigerian woman

could be regarded as being a member of a particular social group since she had been

sexually exploited as a victim of trafficking and would be stigmatised, marginalised and

discriminated against upon a return to Nigeria. In another case, the court ruled on the

evidentiary value of the assessments undertaken by the national victim protection

organisation and questioned the lower court’s approach to disregard the detailed analysis

submitted by that organisation.

Protection was also granted to a transsexual trafficking victim from India by the Administrative

Court of Cologne in Germany. The court noted that the victim’s return to the country of origin

would not constitute a safe environment since the applicant would face family members or

298

ASYLUM REPORT 2023

members of the Hijra community through whom she had experienced sexual abuse since

childhood, violence and forced to prostitution.

In contrast, CALL in Belgium reviewed the case of a perpetrator of human trafficking who tried

to obtain international protection. He claimed to have been threated, arrested and abused by

Hamas. He travelled to Belgium, where he was arrested on charges of human trafficking and

participation in criminal groups. He was sentenced to imprisonment and excluded from

refugee and subsidiary protection status.

There were several developments with regard to referral mechanisms in EU+ countries.

Ireland adopted a bill in July 2022 to amend the national referral mechanism to make it easier

to identify victims and involve a broader range of actors to provide support.¹³⁷⁶ In Finland,

legislative amendments were introduced and entered into force in January 2023 to improve

the identification and referral of victims of trafficking and their right to services and assistance,

irrespective of the progress of criminal proceedings.¹³⁷⁷

Spain’s Council of Ministers adopted a draft bill on trafficking and exploitation which focuses

on prevention, assistance and the protection of victims by guaranteeing a series of rights and

support measures. A national referral mechanism for potential trafficking victims will also be

created.¹³⁷⁸

In Estonia, a new Victim Support Act enters into force on 1 April 2023. The act will further

improve the availability and quality of victim support services.¹³⁷⁹

As part of a reform process, the Human Rights Initiatives Unit in Malta will develop a national

strategy and action plan against human trafficking, which will then serve as the national

referral mechanism.¹³⁸⁰ This initiative will receive the support of the Council of Europe through

a 2-year project to help with the preparation of the new national anti-trafficking strategy and

action plan.¹³⁸¹

5.5.2. Practical tools and awareness-raising campaigns

Several EU+ countries conducted targeted awareness-raising activities and

published guidelines on the identification and referral of victims.

The French Ministry of Gender Equality, Diversity and Equal Opportunities

developed a training manual on the identification and protection of victims of

trafficking, coordinated by the interdepartmental mission on human trafficking

(MIPROF).¹³⁸² Since March 2022, a working group on the risks of trafficking for refugees

fleeing Ukraine - piloted by UNHCR in coordination with MIPROF, and including the General

Directorate of Foreigners (DGEF), OFPRA, MIPROF and many specialised NGOs, produced

identification and awareness tools (leaflets) in several languages with a special focus on minor

victims of human trafficking.

The Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration published a handbook on practical

aspects of conducting proceedings in cases of human trafficking,¹³⁸³ and the Icelandic Ministry

of Justice issued guidelines on indicators of trafficking in human beings, which was published

in three languages (Icelandic, English and Polish).¹³⁸⁴

In Greece, the National Referral Mechanism for the Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking,

which is a coordinating mechanism that includes all stakeholders from national authorities and

299

Asylum Report 2023 - page 6