Suchergebnisse

This article describes the legal framework of the reception conditions of unaccompanied minors in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

Le Luxembourg reste un pays attractif à l'immigration. Entre 2019 et 2020 la population luxembourgeoise a continué à augmenter principalement en raison de l'immigration nette, passant de 626.108 à 634.730 habitants (+1,4%), mais d'une manière plus discrète que les années précédentes. La part luxembourgeoise représente 52,8% de la population et les ressortissants étrangers 47,2%. La pandémie a dominé la politique en matière d'immigration et asile pendant l'année 2020 et 2021. Ces politiques ont impacté tous les secteurs au Luxembourg y compris les volets de l'immigration et de l'asile. La fermeture des frontières extérieures de l'Union Européenne, la réintroduction temporaire des contrôles aux frontières internes de l'espace Schengen (décrétées par l'Allemagne, la Belgique et la France) et la perturbation du trafic aérien international ont affecté les mouvements migratoires vers et au départ du Luxembourg. La limitation des mouvements des ressortissants pays tiers (RPT) s'est compliquée suite à la déclaration de l'état de crise entre le 18 mars et le 13 mai 2020 et la fermeture des services d'immigration et asile. Néanmoins, afin d'éviter qu'ils ne tombent dans une situation irrégulière, les autorités luxembourgeoises ont étendu la durée de validité des titres et cartes de séjour et des visas de manière automatique. De même, le traitement des dossiers et la prise de décision par la Direction de l'immigration se sont poursuivis sans interruption. L'interdiction d'entrée des RPT (avec des exceptions pour certaines catégories) a été maintenue jusqu'au 30 juin 2021. Une baisse significative du nombre de titres de séjour délivrés, de demandes d'autorisation temporaire de séjour et de visas de court séjour a été constatée, ainsi qu'une diminution de presque 50% des demandes de protection internationale. Le regroupement familial est resté le principal type de titre de séjour en 2020. Les limitations de mouvements ont aussi une incidence sur les transferts sous le règlement Dublin ainsi que sur les retours vers le pays d'origine. Au cours de l'année 2020, le Luxembourg a continué à maintenir ses engagements de solidarité internationale avec la relocalisation et la réinstallation des demandeurs de protection internationale (DPI) puisque 25 personnes (dont 16 mineurs) ont été relocalisées et 14 réinstallées. La réception des DPI s'est poursuivie car l'Office national de l'accueil (ONA) n'a pas fermé ses guichets. Un défi majeur est constitué par les taux d'occupation élevés dans les structures d'hébergement de l'ONA. La crise du logement affecte particulièrement les bénéficiaires de protection internationale (BPI) qui peinent à trouver un logement en-dehors des structures d'accueil réservées en principe aux DPI. Dans ce contexte l'ONA a poursuivi ses efforts à inciter les communes à promouvoir la mise en place de structures d'hébergement pour DPI et/ou de possibilités d'hébergement pour BPI. ; 2021

This study provides an overview of the current procedures and practices regarding the detection, identification and protection of victims of trafficking in human beings from third-countries in Luxembourg. Since 2016, Luxembourg saw a number of significant developments with regard to legislation, institutional and policy reforms, as well as debates and awareness campaigns related to the detection, identification, and protection of (presumed) third-country national victims of trafficking in human beings. These include, among others, several legislative developments strengthening procedural safeguards and the fight against certain forms of exploitation; the establishment of a National Action Plan on 'Trafficking in Human Beings' (including a confidential roadmap for relevant stakeholders in the field) and a National Action Plan on 'Prostitution' (which also relates to trafficking in human beings); an enhanced cooperation on the Benelux level; the creation of the Search for Fugitives and Victim Protection Unit of the Judicial Police (including reinforcement in 2021); the appointment of contact person for the fight against trafficking in human beings at the Directorate of Immigration and a 'trafficking' reference person in each of its departments; the reinforcement of the support for victims of trafficking (including the establishment of a common space ('INFOTRAITE') for the two approved assistance services SAVTEH and COTEH); an increase and broadening of the basic and specialised training for various stakeholders; and the organisation of information and awareness raising campaigns. At the same time, the national referral mechanism in Luxembourg has remained the same since its establishment: all stakeholders who detect a (presumed) third-country national victim of trafficking in human beings are obliged to refer cases to the Organised Crime Unit and the Search for Fugitives and Victim Protection Unit of the Judicial Police. Only the Judicial police can formally identify a victim of trafficking and notify the Directorate of Immigration of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs in view of issuing a reflection period of 90 days to the third-country national. Before the expiration of the reflection period, the Directorate of Immigration consults with the Police in order to determine whether a residence permit for victims of trafficking in human beings may be issued to the third-country national. For all the details, including challenges and good practices in the area of detecting, identifying, and protecting victims of trafficking in human beings in Luxembourg, have a look at the EMN Luxembourg Study.

The COVID- 19 crisis led to an asymmetric response from the European Union Member States. This was shown by the closure of the internal borders inside the Schengen area. In order to justify this action, Member States advanced the argument of protection the public health of their national population leaving aside the solidarity that Member States should have demonstrated during a time of crisis. This article is therefore dealing with the notion of solidarity in times of temporary border re-establishments.

The Covid-19 pandemic took most EU Member States of the European Union by surprise, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion across the continent. The response of the EU Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The European Union's response was even slower, and it was not until 17th March 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: it affected 1) the mobility of those third-country nationals who were on a temporary stay in the EU Member States; 2) the entry of third-country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) legal migrants entering and staying; and 4) the status of the third-country nationals already residing in the EU Member States, especially those experiencing a loss of income. This article will deal with the EU Member States' measures to manage the immigration services, as a case study how Luxembourg dealt to avoid that temporary staying migrants and regular migrants fall into irregularity. Finally, we will focus on the vulnerability of third-country nationals with the rising risk of unemployment and the risk of being returned to their country of origin. The article will also analyse access to healthcare and unemployment benefits.

The European Migration Network (EMN) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have published updated information on the impact of COVID-19 in the migration area. The new Umbrella Inform completes the joint EMN and OECD Inform series between on the impact of COVID-19 on migration and asylum in the EU Member States and non-EU OECD countries throughout 2020. Updates include changes in border procedures, provision of COVID-19 related healthcare services to migrants, the shifting landscape of the labour market, international protection, international students, and return issues.

This presentation analyses the situation generated by the Covid-19 pandemic crisis regarding border closures and the reintroduction of temporary border controls at the internal borders in the EU and the impact that this border closures and the pandemic had on third-country nationals living or visiting the European Union.

The presentation describes the structure, aims and objectives of the European Migration Network and the structure, aim and activities of EMN Luxembourg.

The main objective of this study of the European Migration Network is to provide objective and reliable information about the usage of detention and alternatives to detention in international protection and return procedures in Luxembourg. Luxembourgish legislation, namely the amended Law of 29 August 2008 on Free Movement of Persons and Immigration (Immigration Law) and the Law of 18 December 2015 on International Protection and Temporary Protection (Asylum Law), foresees three alternatives to detention: - Alternative 1: Reporting obligations, which includes the obligation to surrender a passport, travel document or identity document; - Alternative 2: Home custody (+ electronic monitoring, if necessary); - Alternative 3: Deposition of a financial guarantee of 5.000€. In principle, the assessment between detention or alternatives to detention is made at the same time as when the grounds for detention are considered, as long as the Directorate of Immigration, as the responsible authority, has all the necessary information to decide if an alternative to detention can be ordered. Furthermore, the possibility to impose an alternative to detention is in principle systemically considered, as both relevant laws foresee that the detention decision is ordered in writing by the Minister on the basis of a case-by-case assessment, where necessary and if other less coercive measures cannot be effectively applied. Grounds for detention are generally rejected in favour of an alternative to detention if the person concerned falls within the category of vulnerable groups and if person is able to proof effective guarantees of representation to prevent the risk of absconding. This latter obligation on the third-country national to revert the legal presumption that there is a risk of absconding remains the main challenge because effective guarantees of representation are not defined by law. This is particularly challenging in the context of return procedures, where this legal presumption exists in nearly all cases where a third-country national has no valid identity, travel or residence documents. In the absence of such effective guarantees of representation, the Minister in charge of Immigration and Asylum generally does not make the decision to apply an alternative to detention. Consequently, the research in the context of this study has shown that alternatives to detention are only rarely used in Luxembourg, with the important exception of home custody in the Emergency Housing Structure of Kirchberg ('Structure d'hébergement d'urgence Kirchberg' – SHUK). The SHUK serves as a semi-open return facility for applicants for international protection and irregularly staying third-country nationals whose fingerprints have already been registered in Eurodac by another Member State and are therefore likely to be transferred to that Member State, in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation. A placement at the SHUK corresponds to home custody. The rare use of alternatives to detention also results in the fact that there is generally not much data available in this regard, with the important exception of home custody in the SHUK, which is more widely used.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created profound changes in all areas of migration and asylum. EU Member States and OECD countries have made many efforts to keep the pandemic under control, entailing impacts such as border closures, travel restrictions, and the need to introduce sanitary measures. Beginning with the pandemic's impact on permits and entry conditions, the Inform reports on contingency measures to keep systems operational and to mitigate the impacts on migrants and citizens to the extent possible. For instance, the reduction of in-person immigration related services was largely replaced by electronic or postal communication to ensure continuity in processes. In EU Member States and Norway, the automatic extension of residence permits or the removal of the obligation to leave in some cases, were some of the measures taken to reduce the impact of COVID-19. Most EU Member States provided financial support for migrant workers affected by the pandemic, either due to unemployment or loss of income, and made COVID-19 related healthcare services available to all migrants. Although restrictions were imposed on the admission of migrants, continued admission was granted for jobs deemed essential to meet labour market needs, notably in areas of health, agriculture, and transport. New digital tools have been critical in providing asylum and migration services, although the Inform notes that it has also raised new challenges. In the area of asylum, for instance, providing effective and fair application and appeals processes has become more complicated by having remote interviews, and depends largely on the applicants' ability to use and access electronic means. Both the requests for asylum and the number of returns carried out have reduced in 2020 as a result of the pandemic. The landscape also changed for international students, where in-person attendance was discouraged if not suspended altogether. Many students returned home, and in some cases, were able to continue their studies remotely, while processes to renew residence permits were moved online. The joint research shows that public authorities have acted swiftly to introduce new measures or adapt their systems to confront the migration challenges caused by the pandemic, or in some cases, to simply continue to use pre-existing on-line systems. While the long-term impacts are hard to predict, the last chapter of the inform looks towards future migration policies and how these might be shaped in the context of the digitalisation of migration management, the need for bio-secure borders, and the expansion of teleworking digital nomads. The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) provided inputs to the publication.

For almost 150 years, Luxembourg depends on two kinds of migration, qualified and non-qualified, in order to deal with the workforce needs of its economy. Compared to other EU Member States, Luxembourg is a country with the largest proportion of foreigners; however, this foreign population is mainly composed of EU citizens. In Luxembourg, 296.500 residents (47,4%) of a total population of 626.100 are foreigners. 247.900 are EU citizens representing 39.6% of the total population of the country and 83,6% of the foreign population of the country. The 48.600 third-country nationals represent only 7,8% of the total population and 16.4% of the foreign population. Due to its size and geographic location, Luxembourg has an access to a very particular form of economic migration: cross-border workers. Globalisation has also played a decisive role in the development of economic migration for the Luxembourgish labour market. The financial center was obliged to become highly specialised in order to remain competitive in regards to other financial centers and to maintain its volume of business. In order to maintain its competitive advantage, Luxembourg needs highly skilled personnel, which, up until now, the country has found within the Greater Region. With regards to the labour market: the number of salaried workers on 31 December 2019 shows that Luxembourgish residents represented only 26,5%, EU citizens (other than Luxembourgish) 23,4% and third-country national residents only 4,2%. Cross-border workers from Belgium, France and Germany represented 46% of the workforce. The Luxembourgish labour market is not a national labour market but rather a labour market of the Greater Region with a trend to become an international labour market. This situation can be explained in the context of the free movement of services and the posted workers coming from other Member States to Luxembourg. The need of workforce must be placed in this particular context, taking into account the "internal reserves", the free movement of persons from which EU citizens, who reside in the country, benefit and the large majority of cross-border workers. To this framework one must add a range of measures that were introduced by the Luxembourgish authorities in order to regulate the labour market. Some of these measures did not have labour market needs as their only objective, but were also foreseen to manage integration processes. The attitude of the successive governments was to adapt immigration to the economic needs of the country. The government policy intends to implement an economic diversification policy, focused on attracting high added value activities such as ICT, health technologies, space, logistics, industry and FinTech. In consequence and taking into consideration the specificities of Luxembourg's labour market, third-country national seasonal workers are not a priority of the Luxembourgish government.

This study analyses the legal and factual situation in which long-term irregular staying migrants are in Luxembourg.

This study analyses the legal and factual situation in which long-term irregular staying migrants are in Luxembourg.

The COVID-19 took by surprise most Member States of the European Union, as they underestimated the rapid spread of the contagion in the continent. The response of the Member States was asymmetrical, individualistic and significantly slow. The first measures taken were to close down the internal borders. The response of the European Union was even slower to the point that and it was not until March 17th 2020 that the external borders were closed. These actions affected legal migration into the European Union from four perspectives: 1) it affected the mobility of those third country nationals who were on temporary stay in the Member States; 2) the entry of third country nationals to do seasonal work; 3) the entry and stay of legal migrants; and 4) the status quo of the third country nationals already residing in the Member States, especially those who have a loss of income. This article will deal with the measures taken by Member States on who to manage the immigration services during the crisis as well as the measures taken in order to deal with overstayers, seasonal workers and other legal migrants. Finally, we will focus in the vulnerable situation that third-country national salaried workers are exposed due to the loss of income or loss of employment in the Member States and the risk of being returned to their country of origin.

Third-country nationals migrate to the European Union for different reasons: economic migration, family reasons, studies, or in search of international protection. Some of these individuals stay in the territory of the Member States for a considerable number of years and develop attachments to the Member State. For this reason, integration of third-country nationals who are long-term residents in the Member States is considered as a key element in promoting economic and social cohesion in the European Union. One of the first pieces of EU legislation that was adopted dealing with immigration to the European Union was the Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents. While the Directive entered into force on 23 January 2006, the implementation of the Directive by Member States had not been uniform. This is the reason why EMN Luxembourg decided, at the request of the Luxembourgish authorities, to launch a study on this topic through the European Migration Network. As it was necessary to make a proper assessment of the implementation of the Directive, it was decided by the EMN Steering Board on 21 October 2019 that EMN Luxembourg would collect information through the EMN Ad-Hoc Query mechanism to establish the set out a state of play of the implementation of the Directive. The information for elaborating this Inform was collected through four EMN Ad-hoc queries highlighting specific elements of the long-term resident status in the EU.