EMN Studies and Policy Briefs

The aim of this Study is to present an overview of the challenges faced by national authorities in their efforts to reliably establish and verify the identity of third-country nationals within the context of various migration procedures and of national practices of EU Member States to address those challenges. This study updates and supplements the 2013 EMN Study “Establishing Identity for International Protection: Challenges and Practices”.

The Study presents a comparative overview and analysis the measures in place at Member States level to fight the illegal employment of TCNs, possible problematic areas and obstacles in this field and strategies and good practices to overcome them. The Study examines each stage of the illegal employment policy ‘cycle’ for TCNs: (i) preventive measures and incentives for employers and employees; (ii) identification of illegal employment of TCNs; (iii) sanctions for employers and (iv) outcomes for employees.

Study identifies both commonalities and differences between EU (Member) States’ and Norway's policies and practices on family reunification, which depend to a great extent on EU (Member) States’ discretion, despite being guided by the framework established by the Family Reunification Directive (2003/86/EC) at EU level. Study provides up-to-date information and highlights a number of modifications which have been adopted by some EU (Member) States and Norway since 2011. Moreover, the study includes a review of some of the relevant case law in the field of family reunification.

Study analyses the differences in between the return procedures of respective EU Member States and specific challenges these countries face when returning the rejected asylum seekers. Study also gives an overview of the national policies of EU Member States in the field of return as well as of legal frameworks. Furthermore, situations when return of third-country nationals is not immediately possible, practices adopted by each EU Member States to address these situations, as well as measures these countries are implementing to encourage rejected asylum seekers to leave the EU territory are examined, too.

Study offers a comprehensive overview of policies and practices on the functioning of resettlement, humanitarian admission programmes and schemes, as well as private sponsorship programmes for refugees in the EU Member States and Norway. Study analysis the national political contexts and focuses predominantly at methods and criteria used for selecting persons to be resettled, and activities undertaken prior to departure to the resettlement country, post-arrival integration measures, as well as challenges and good practices in the implementation of resettlement and humanitarian programmes/schemes in Europe.

This study focuses on the conditions of labour market access for various categories of beneficiaries of international protection both in legislation and in practice as well as examines the categories of residence statuses of these beneficiaries. Study also looks into different types of employment related support measures, analyses coordination between relevant bodies and other authorities within the field of integration and maps good practices and obstacles in EU Member States.

This focused study examines and compares the different legal frameworks, procedures and practices in the EU Member States to enable third-country nationals to change migration status, as well as the conditions associated with such changes.

The aim of the study is also to inform about the scope of rights that the applicant acquires after this change in comparison with the previous status and to analyse the motivations of the EU Member States to allow these changes. The study also looks at existing obstacles, good practice and lessons learnt.

The document sets out core indicators for monitoring and evaluating assisted voluntary returns and reintegration programmes (AVRR) in the EU. This common framework aims to promote monitoring and evaluation of AVR(R) throughout the EU, to encourage Member States to start monitoring and evaluating, to improve the quality of monitoring and evaluating and to help with more comparable data collection. The common methodology can be applied by Member States on a voluntary basis and it can help them to design more effective AVR(R) programmes.