CARIM EAST – CONSORTIUM FOR APPLIED RESEARCH ON
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
Co-inanced by the European Union
Return, readmission and reintegration
in the Eastern Partnership countries:
An overview
Zuzanna Brunarska
Sergo Mananashvili
Agnieszka Weinar
CARIM-East Research Report 2013/17
© 2013. All rights reserved.
No part of this paper may be distributed, quoted
or reproduced in any form without permission from
the CARIM East Project.
CARIM-East
Creating an Observatory of Migration East of Europe
Research Report
CARIM-East RR 2013/17
Return, readmission and reintegration
in the Eastern Partnership countries:
An overview
Zuzanna Brunarska
Sergo Mananashvili
Agnieszka Weinar
© 2013, European University Institute
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Any additional reproduction for
other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the Robert Schuman
Centre for Advanced Studies.
Requests should be addressed to carim.east@eui.eu
If cited or quoted, reference should be made as follows:
Zuzanna Brunarska, Sergo Mananashvili, Agnieszka Weinar, Return, readmission and reintegration in
the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview, CARIM-East RR 2013/17, Robert Schuman Centre
for Advanced Studies, San Domenico di Fiesole (FI): European University Institute, 2013.
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION CANNOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS THE
OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
European University Institute
Badia Fiesolana
I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)
Italy
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/Publications/
http://www.carim-east.eu/publications/
http://cadmus.eui.eu
CARIM-East – Creating an Observatory East of Europe
This project which is co-financed by the European Union is the first migration observatory focused on
the Eastern Neighbourhood of the European Union and covers all countries of the Eastern Partnership
initiative (Belarus, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan) and Russian
Federation.
The project’s two main themes are:
(1) migration from the region to the European Union (EU) focusing in particular on countries of
emigration and transit on the EU’s eastern border; and
(2) intraregional migration in the post-Soviet space.
The project started on 1 April 2011 as a joint initiative of the European University Institute (EUI),
Florence, Italy (the lead institution), and the Centre of Migration Research (CMR) at the University of
Warsaw, Poland (the partner institution).
CARIM researchers undertake comprehensive and policy-oriented analyses of very diverse aspects of
human mobility and related labour market developments east of the EU and discuss their likely
impacts on the fast evolving socio-economic fabric of the six Eastern Partners and Russia, as well as
that of the European Union.
In particular, CARIM-East:
•
•
•
•
•
builds a broad network of national experts from the region representing all principal
disciplines focused on human migration, labour mobility and national development issues (e.g.
demography, law, economics, sociology, political science).
develops a comprehensive database to monitor migration stocks and flows in the region,
relevant legislative developments and national policy initiatives;
undertakes, jointly with researchers from the region, systematic and ad hoc studies of
emerging migration issues at regional and national levels.
provides opportunities for scholars from the region to participate in workshops organized by
the EUI and CMR, including academic exchange opportunities for PhD candidates;
provides forums for national and international experts to interact with policymakers and other
stakeholders in the countries concerned.
Results of the above activities are made available for public consultation through the website of the
project: http://www.carim-east.eu/
For more information:
CARIM-East
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (EUI)
Convento
Via delle Fontanelle 19
50014 San Domenico di Fiesole
Italy
Tel: +39 055 46 85 817
Fax: + 39 055 46 85 770
Email: carim.east@eui.eu
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies
http://www.eui.eu/RSCAS/
Table of Contents
Key points ..................................................................................................................................
Key recommendations ................................................................................................................
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1. Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Forced return .......................................................................................................................... 1
3. The use of readmission mechanisms ...................................................................................... 7
4. Voluntary return and reintegration ....................................................................................... 11
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 16
References ................................................................................................................................ 17
Key points
•
•
•
•
•
The assessment of the scale of return and a comparative analysis of this phenomenon in
Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries is hardly possible due to the lack of reliable data. This is
especially true of voluntary return because of their voluntary character and the fact that they
are not properly registered as such.
Most EaP countries still lack readmission agreements with key countries of origin whose
migrants come to or transit through theterritories of EaP countries. However, many such
agreements have been signed or are under negotiation. Belarus and Azerbaijan are unusual in
that they have not signed any readmission agreements.
The fears accompanying the signing of RAs with the EU, forecasting mass inflows of
returnees, including third-country nationals, turned out to be exaggerated.
Existing return and reintegration initiatives in EaP countries are mostly funded from external
sources – by international organizations and individual, for the most part EU, host countries.
Some available programs have, however, proved to not be very efficient. Moreover, they
include limited migrant categories. Belarus and Azerbaijan do not have any reintegration
policy for return migrants.
The reintegration of EaP nationals concerns, above all, the domestic labour market.
Key recommendations
•
•
•
•
Additional research and more thorough data collection regarding return, readmission and
reintegration in EaP countries is needed to provide a more carefully matched approach to this
issue. An example would be the ongoing research project Cross-Regional Information
System (CRIS) on the Reintegration of Migrants in their Countries of Origin run by the
European University Institute and focusing on Armenia and Morocco. The project is funded
by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
Readmission agreements and appropriate readmission protocols with the main partners
facilitate the process of dignified return to and from the EaP states, with respect to human
rights as far as migration exchange is concerned.
Return migration should become a separate branch of migration policy among migrantsending states, within which a special institutional and legal framework should be created to
implement return and reintegration programs.
There is the need to initiate a proper information campaign for return migrants including
information on job opportunities, medical services, taxes, business start-ups, domestic
legislation etc. Support for return migrants in the labour market should be a priority in
facilitating voluntary returns and successful reintegration.
Introduction
This paper is based on the information included in the twenty-one explanatory notes from CARIM
East network members, covering the statistical, legal and socio-political aspects of return, readmission
and reintegration issues in individual countries of the CARIM East region. Moreover, research papers
on integration and reintegration of migrants prepared in the CARIM East framework served as a
subsidiary source of information. This paper gives an overview of the basic facts concerning return,
readmission and reintegration issues in Eastern Partnership countries concentrating on the existing
gaps and problems.
1. Definitions
Return may take different forms depending on the extent to which the decision to return is left to a migrant.
This in turn depends on his/her legal status. On that basis we can distinguish a few types of return:
•
•
•
•
•
Voluntary return - which is based on the free will of the returnee and can be independent
or assisted (by provision of logistical or financial assistance)
Forced return - which depends on an administrative or judicial act and can take the form of
voluntary departure (the returnee is given a time limit to leave the territory of the country)
or removal (physical transportation out of the country). A person can be forcibly returned
directly to his/her country of origin, but also to a transit country.
Readmission is acceptance of a person from abroad who does not, or who no longer, fulfills
the conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territory of a foreign country. It
can refer both to the citizens of the readmitting country but also to third-country nationals (or
stateless persons) in cases where they have entered 1 the foreign country via the readmitting
country’s border.
A readmission agreement is a bilateral agreement between two states establishing
procedures for the forced return of persons who do not, or who no longer, fulfill the
conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territory of one of the parties. The
agreement is, then, to facilitate the transit of such persons. Readmission agreements are
accompanied by readmission protocols, which define all technical details such as authorized
bodies, time frames, means of transport, costs, protection of personal data etc.
Long-term absence from the home country may mean that a returnee needs reintegration,
which is understood as re-integration into society. Reintegration policy can be treated as a
part of the migration policy of migrant-sending states. A sending country may dispose of
certain instruments facilitating the reintegration of return migrants in its migration policy.
2. Forced return
There are certain differences between the EaP states in terms of legislation (e.g. definitions,
consequences etc.) for forced return. The table below (Table 1) contains basic information on the legal
framework concerning forced return in Eastern Partnership countries.
1
EU readmission agreements apply to those third-country nationals who entered the territory of a Member State either illegally
or directly from a relevant EaP country or who – even when they entered legally – hold a visa or a residence permit issued by
a relevant EaP country, whose period of validity is longer than their authorisation to stay in the Member State.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Table 1. Forced return in legislation of Eastern Partnership countries
AM
Forms of return
Forced return from the border - in
case of the absence of travel documents
or legal grounds to stay in AM, aliens
(except asylum seekers) are returned by
the same carrier.
Independent departure – aliens with
no legal grounds to stay are obliged to
leave the country (no time limit except
for rejected asylum seekers, 6 months).
Expulsion – ordered by a court at the
request of the Police in case of the
absence of legal grounds to stay or
residence and if a foreigner fails to
depart independently.
AZ
BY
2
Forced return from the border - in
case of absence of travel documents or
legal grounds to stay in AZ (except for
asylum seekers).
Expulsion of immigrants – ordered by a
court in relation to those whose immigrant
status has been annulled because they
have fraudulently acquired this status;
committed certain administrative
infringements; for the purpose of national
security; or resided outside AZ longer than
6 months in a year.
Expulsion of non-immigrant aliens ordered by the MIA, State Migration
Service or a court in relation to aliens
who have seriously infringed the
legislation on the legal status of aliens.
Deportation
(депортация)
–
administrative sanction in case of the
violation of rules concerning border
crossing and legal stay, and ordered by a
court, MIA, the State Border Committee
or the State Security Committee.
Legal consequences
− In case immediate return is impossible,
aliens may be detained in a transit area or
in a special facility provided for that
purpose.
− Failure to depart independently can lead to
expulsion.
− RA Police implements the expulsion
decision.
− Suspensory effect of the appeal.
− Arrest and detention possible when there
is a risk of absconding (max. 90 days)
− If expulsion impossible within 90 days, the
police issues a temporary residence
permit valid for up to one year.
− 3-year entry ban.
− No appeal.
− Seven days are granted for independent
departure, and the failure to comply leads
to forced expulsion.
− Absolute entry ban.
− 48h are granted for independent
departure, which can be prolonged in
justified cases.
− Failure to depart within the fixed time-limit
leads to detention and forced expulsion.
ordered by a court
− - Absolute entry ban.
− Prior detention up to 72h possible. Further
detention up to 3 months, approved by the
prosecutor, to ensure the implementation of
the deportation decision (still no special
facility despite a relevant 1999 decision).
− Right to judicial appeal within 5 days
(suspensory effect)
− Two forms of deportation possible:
independent departure within 30 days,
and forced deportation (under escort).
Failure to depart within the fixed time-limit
leads to detention and forced deportation.
− 1 to 5 year entry ban possible.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
Expulsion - concerns persons who are
not subject to deportation but pose a
threat to public order or national
security.
GE
Independent departure after the loss of
the right to stay – an alien, although de
jure in irregular situation, decides before
being apprehended to leave the territory
by himself/herself.
Expulsion – concerns an alien who
entered or stays illegally or who poses a
risk to public policy, public security or
national security. The decision-making
body in case of illegal entry/stay is the
Ministry of Justice while in other cases
it is a court.
MD
Return (forced) – decision taken by the
Bureau of Migration and Asylum in
relation to the alien who entered
illegally or lost the right to stay
(including rejected asylum seekers).
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
− May be ordered in the form of
independent departure (if no risk of
absconding) within 30 days, or forced
expulsion.
− In case of forced expulsion, an alien is
detained (no appeal). No administrative
detention but the assignment to residence
is applied before the relevant decision is
taken.
− Suspensory effect of the application for
international protection.
− 1-10 year entry ban possible.
− One
year
(renewable)
temporary
residence permit is issued in case the
expulsion is impossible for practical
reasons.
− No administrative fine is imposed if
departed within 10 days after the loss of the
right to stay (no entry ban).
− After 10 days, the border guard fines the
alien. The fine can be paid either before or
after leaving the territory. No entry ban as
long as the fine is paid.
− If the decision is taken by the Ministry of
Justice, 3 days are fixed for independent
departure (non-compliance leads to
forced expulsion). A court’s decision on
expulsion has to be implemented
immediately (i.e. forced expulsion carried
out by the National Bureau of
Enforcement).
− Administrative detention possible for the
purposes of identification or carrying out
the expulsion decision. After 48h, a court’s
decision is needed. No time limit for such
a detention is set.
− 1 year entry ban
− Obligation of the independent departure
(from 5 days to 3 months depending on the
category of persons), non-compliance leads
to removal.
− The right to appeal within 5 days (no
suspensory effect).
− Suspensory effect of the application for
international protection.
− 1-5 year entry ban.
3
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Removal under escort – the personnel of
the BMA accompanies an alien to the
State Border. It applies to those aliens
who have not departed voluntarily;
crossed illegally the state border; who
have been declared persona non grata
(i.e. pose a risk to national security and
public order); who have mental or
physical disabilities; who pose a risk for
the public health.
Expulsion – removal as an additional
measure ordered by a court in relation to
aliens who have committed criminal or
administrative offences.
UA
Voluntary return – rejected asylum
seekers, as well as aliens who have no
legal grounds to stay or who cannot
depart due to lack of funds or loss of
passport, can apply for VR at the State
Migration Service.
Forced return – ordered by the SMS,
the State Security Service or the border
agency (subsequent notification of a
prosecutor within 24 h) in relation to the
aliens who case violate the legislation on
the legal status of aliens; are detained in
controlled border areas because of the
unlawful border crossing; pose risk for
national security/public order/public
health.
Forced expulsion (принудительное
выдворение) – ordered by an
administrative court at the request of the
competent authorities in case of the noncompliance with the decision on
voluntary departure or if there are
reasonable grounds to believe that
foreigners or stateless persons will avoid
fulfillment of this decision
− Implemented within 24h if no further
formalities
needed. Otherwise,
the
placement under public custody (detention
at the Centre for Temporary Placement of
Foreigners, ordered by a court) for 30 days
(can be extended by a court up to 6
months). The decision can be appealed but
with no suspensory effect.
− 1,5 to 5,5 year entry ban
− If the removal impossible, a tolerated
status valid for 6 months (renewable) is
granted.
− Possible public custody by a court
decision (the same rules as mentioned
above).
− Entry ban of 5 years and 10 years if aliens
pose a serious danger to the public order or
national security.
− Tolerated status if the expulsion
impossible.
− A certificate of the voluntarily returning
person is issued, serving as a temporary
residence permit.
− VR within 60 days after application.
− No detention but the obligation to report
the place of stay at the SMS once a week.
− Voluntary departure within a prescribed
period which must not exceed 30 days.
Non-compliance leads to forced expulsion
(see below).
− 3 year entry ban possible.
− Aliens are not detained but can be
accompanied by representatives of the
competent authorities.
− The court defines the period of entry ban.
− Court’s decision can be appealed.
− Aliens are placed by SMS or border agency
(with subsequent notification of a
prosecutor within 24 h) in Centres of
Temporary Stay up to 12 months.
The above table shows that not only across the EaP states but also within one particular country
different terms are used to denominate forced return, and the terms “expulsion”, “forced return” or
“deportation” do not automatically mean that the relevant decisions are enforced by the competent
authorities by means of physical transportation of aliens out of the country. The use of the mentioned
terms may often imply that aliens are granted certain time-limit (which also differs across the
4
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
countries) for independent departure and only the non-compliance leads to the enforcement of the
return decisions. The appeal against the return decision suspends its enforcement in Armenia, Belarus
but not in Moldova (in AZ, aliens do not have the right to appeal against the decisions on forced return
from the border).
As a rule, in the process of enforcement of return decisions, aliens are placed under administrative
detention and here again the relevant rules are quite divergent: while the detention cannot last more
than three months in Armenia and Belarus, in Moldova the three-month period can be extended up to
six months, and in Ukraine, the 12-month time limit is set for the placement in the Centres for
Temporary Stay of Foreign Nationals while in Georgia, there is no such time-limit for pre-removal
detention of aliens. In this regard, it should also be mentioned that Armenia, Belarus and Moldova
grant temporary residence permits (in Moldova it is called “tolerated stay”) to aliens whose expulsion
has failed due to certain objective circumstances such as the lack of cooperation of the country of
origin, the absence of documents, etc.
As regards the entry bans accompanying the forced return decisions, they too vary across the EaP
countries, ranging from the absolute entry ban in Azerbaijan to one-year maximum entry ban in
Georgia. The liberal approach of the latter is further conveyed in the possibility given to aliens in
irregular situation to depart independently before being apprehended with hardly any negative legal
consequences for them.
In any event, a comparative analysis of return in EaP states is hardly possible due to the lack of data
and the fact that the available data are so difficult to compare. Surprisingly, gathering statistical data on
forced returns proved to be a quite difficult task. The responsible bodies in the EaP states provide data
for different (sometimes untypical) time periods and for different categories of migrants (their own
citizens, third-country citizens, or citizens of particular third countries). This effectively makes
comparison impossible. Furthermore, often only data on the number of issued decisions (concerning
deportations, expulsions but also “voluntary return”) is available, while there is no data on how many
people have left (namely the proportion of those decisions that have been in fact executed). The table
below is an attempt to gather recent data on readmissions, expulsions and deportations in EaP countries
from CARIM East explanatory notes. The table below reflects the complexity of this issue.
Table 2. Number of readmissions, expulsions and deportations in the EaP states 2
Country
Readmissions to …
Forced returns to …
Readmissions
from …
Forced returns
from …
x
1028 people deported
from Belarus and 1034
dispatched in 2011;
1036 people deported
and 1150 dispatched in
2012.
75 readmission
requests from
Sweden, Norway,
Switzerland and
Armenia Russia received in
2011-2012 (holders
of Armenian
citizenship approved
in 53 cases).
Belarus
x
2
Data on Azerbaijan is not available.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
5
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Country
Readmissions to …
Forced returns to …
Georgia
1596 requests from
EU countries
03.2011-12.2012 (of
these 1477
approved), 838
applications
submitted 03.201212.2012 (of these
785 approved);
2009 Georgian
citizens deported in
2010 (among them
321 from Poland, 307
from Greece), 2209 in
2011 (among them
716 from Turkey, 325
from Russia), 4851 in
2012 (3086 from
Turkey, 329 from
Russia);
In fact, 112 people
readmitted to
Georgia in 2011, 142
in 2012;
As of Jan 2013
Georgia has not
received any
application for the
readmission of thirdcountry nationals.
Moldova From the EU: 110
Moldovan citizens in
2010, 126 in 2011,
41 in 2012.
Ukraine
Readmissions
from …
Forced returns
from …
As of Jan 2013 no
applications
submitted from
Georgia to EU MS
in the framework of
the RA since it
began to function.
1271 deportations
from the EU to
Georgia in 2010, 768
in 2011.
From the EU: 1860 in
2011,
60 Moldovans
removed from the US
in 2011.
From the EU: 867 in
2010 (among them:
469 Ukrainian
citizens, 267 other
CIS, 131 non-CIS
countries); 631 in
2011 (among them:
391 Ukrainian
citizens, 164 other
CIS, 76 non-CIS).
119 people expelled
from Moldova in 2011
(70 court decisions, 49
administrative
decisions), 270 in 2012
(85 court, 185
administrative
decisions).
2147 forced return
decisions in 2010, 1454
in 2011 (majority
concerned CIS citizens),
1660 people left
following forced return
decision in 2010, 1043
left in 2011;
decisions on voluntary
returns: 1794 in 2010,
1199 in 2011 (of them:
1446 left in 2010, 909 in
2011, 608 of those who
have not left voluntarily
were subject to
expulsion in 2010-2011,
348 of them left).
Source: CARIM East Explanatory Notes on Return, Readmission and Reintegration
6
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
Figure 1 shows the number of EaP nationals returned from EU to their home countries following an
order to leave in 2011. According to Eurostat these statistics concern those who have, in fact, left the
territory of a Member State and they cover forced returns, assisted voluntary returns and unassisted
voluntary returns if reliably recorded3.
Figure 1. EaP countries nationals returned from the EU following an order to leave, 2011
9 000
4,0
8 000
3,5
Returnees
7 000
3,0
6 000
2,5
5 000
2,0
4 000
1,5
3 000
1,0
2 000
0,5
1 000
0
Returnees
as % of
their
country's
nationals
residing in
the EU
0,0
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
Source: based on Eurostat and CARIM East databases
Unsurprisingly, the highest absolute numbers relate to Ukraine, which has the biggest population
among the EaP states. More interesting is the second indicator taking into account the size of the
migrant population residing in the EU. Here Georgia and Belarus clearly stand out from the rest. This
means that, from the statistical point of view, returns to Georgia and Belarus are more frequent than
they are to other EaP countries. 4
3. The use of readmission mechanisms
EaP countries still lack readmission agreements with many countries that are key to national interests
– namely countries of origin of the majority of migrants coming to or transiting through their
territories. Though, in many cases such agreements are under discussion. Moreover, not all existing
agreements work effectively. For example, as far as Armenia is concerned, the existing RA has hardly
been used (Yeganyan 2013).
In Belarus, acceptance of a person from abroad who does not, or who no longer, fulfills the
conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territory of a foreign country applies only to
Belarusian citizens. Belarus does not readmit third-country nationals or stateless persons who enter a
foreign country via the Belarusian border. Belarus has signed no readmission agreements with any
other country. Also Azerbaijan has not signed any readmission agreements. This issue does not seem,
3
4
Although Eurostat speaks here of a “voluntary return”, as it is based on an order to leave, it should rather be called
“voluntary departure”.
It has to be noted that it would be better, methodologically speaking, to consider returns in relation to the size of the total
(both legal and irregular) migrant population from these countries in the EU. Reliable estimates of irregular migrants’
population size do not exist.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
7
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
right now, to be of great importance either to the Azerbaijani authorities or to public opinion in
Azerbaijan. However, in 2012 negotiations concerning visa facilitation and readmission issues
between Azerbaijan and the EU was initiated and, according to the Azerbaijani minister of foreign
affairs, there were relatively few unresolved questions concerning third-country nationals at the end of
2012 (Rumyantsev 2013).
Table 3. Readmission agreements signed by the EaP countries
Armenia
EU
Benelux*
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Danemark
Georgia
Germany
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Montenegro
Norway
Poland
Russia
Serbia
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
total
total EU MS
total non-EU
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
13
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
x
x
x
x
x
7
4
2
11
2
8
x
x
x
x
x
16
7
8
x - Binding readmission agreements
x - Signed but not in force
* Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands
The table above shows that, among the EaP states, Ukraine has signed the most readmission
agreements (16). Taking into account the RAs signed with different categories of countries, Ukraine
and Moldova share first place as far as RAs with non-EU countries are concerned. Armenia has got the
most RAs signed with EU member states. This is, however, connected to the fact that there is still no
RA with the EU. It should be noted that when a country has signed both an RA with the EU and with
8
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
individual EU member states, an RA with the EU does not supersede the previously signed
agreements. However, its provisions take precedence over the provisions of bilateral agreements, if
they are incompatible.
A number of readmission agreements are under discussion. They are either in their initial phase
(e.g. a number of agreements initiated by Moldova and Ukraine), in negotiation (e.g. EU-Azerbaijan,
Moldova-Russia, Azerbaijan-Russia), almost ready to be finalized (e.g. Belarus-Russia; BelarusTurkey; Armenia-EU) or waiting to come into force (e.g. Ukraine-Russia – not yet ratified by the
Russian Duma).
Among the EaP countries Belarus is a special case due to the existence of the Union State of Russia
and Belarus (Eurasian Economic Community) and the absence of border controls on the BelarusRussia border. This means that readmission has a political dimension, making Belarus dependent on
the position of Russia. Therefore, a first step would be to sign readmission agreements between
Belarus and Russia (which may be signed in 2013).
There are various, often contradictory, arguments behind the fact that many EaP states do not rush
(or have not rushed) to sign readmission agreements. In the eyes of the countries that act mainly as
sending and/or transit countries (this is true of all EaP countries) readmission is not a priority and it is
perceived as being of, above all, interest to receiving countries. From the perspective of a transit
country, readmission means (due to the third country nationals clause) having to accept third-country
nationals. This naturally generates additional costs: temporary centers for migrants awaiting
readmission, legal support etc. EaP states, it seems, would be first to sign appropriate readmission
agreements with the countries of origin of migrants transiting through their territory. This objection
concerns various cases: e.g. EU-Belarus, but also Ukraine-Russia. 5 The most problematic group for
the EaP countries comprises irregular migrants from third countries such as China, Vietnam, Pakistan,
India, Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Egypt, Somalia and other Asian and African countries. Therefore,
signing readmission agreements with these states seems to be the most urgent issue from the point of
view of EaP countries.
Moreover, most EaP states sending important numbers of migrants to other countries are not
interested in (or have been reluctant to) signing readmission agreements, fearing that they will not be
ready to accept returning citizens who will then become unemployed. This is the case with Azerbaijan
where it was pointed out that signing RAs will mean having to provide jobs for “illegal” Azerbaijani
compatriots returning home (Rumyancev 2013). Similarly, according to some social partners and some
political groups in Armenia and Georgia doubts were raised whether RAs would not cause mass
returns. N. Chelidze (2013) argues that large-scale readmission from the EU is unlikely because
people tend to get rid of their documents and verification of identity would be difficult unless
biometric passports become common.
Furthermore, there are certain challenges connected with the implementation of existing
readmission agreements. In some instances they are caused by lack of implementation protocols: this
allows various interpretations of the corresponding agreements. Additional problem constitutes a lack
of centralized databases containing information on citizenship and residence status. Furthermore,
verification of migrant identity, when passports and I.D. cards have been disposed of, will be difficult
unless modern identification technologies such as biometrics become common 6. In Armenia consular
5
6
The readmission agreement between Russia and Ukraine was signed in 2008. However the Russian Duma has still not
ratified it. Moreover, there is no readmission protocol that would define the procedures, responsible bodies etc. Russia
objects to ratifying the readmission agreement signed5 with Ukraine so as not to be obliged to accept additional irregular
migrants from the EU via Ukraine
Almost all EaP countries (except for Azerbaijan) have already started to introduce biometric passports. However, those
documents are not common as most countries have been issuing them only for a few years or months: e.g. in Ukraine the
law introducing biometric passports entered into force only in December 2012.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
9
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
services do not have enough staff to conduct punctual personal interviews for citizenship
identification. Moreover, different bodies in Armenia are responsible for the implementation of
individual readmission agreements. This means a non-uniform approach (Chobanyan 2013). 7
RAs with the EU
The EU combines readmission issues with visa facilitation8, something of high importance to EaP
countries. But certain objections accompany (and used also to accompany in the past) the signing of
readmission agreements with the EU.
For Georgia and Armenia, the main objections concern the increased inflow of returnees. The
Moldovan authorities were reluctant to sign readmission agreements with the EU fearing the costs of
implementation, given the massive scale of emigration from that country.
The agreement between Ukraine and the EU concerning the readmission of third-country nationals
aroused much controversy. People, especially residents of border regions, protested against it (in
particular against building temporary detention facilities for third-country nationals) fearing the huge
inflow of illegal migrants coming from Asia and Africa (Ivaschenko Stadnik 2013). Expert and media
forecasts saying that Ukraine would be flooded by illegal migrants from Asian and African countries
turned out to be untrue. Only 14% of persons accepted by Ukraine in through the Readmission
Agreement with EU, 2010-2011, were citizens of developing Asian and African countries. 57%,
meanwhile, were Ukrainian citizens and 29% were citizens of other CIS countries and of Georgia
(Pozniak 2013). Remembering that most of these migrants cross the EU-Ukraine border overland
(through the territories of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary or Romania) and that Ukraine used to have
readmission agreements with these three, the signing of the EU-Ukraine RA could not have brought
spectacular changes.
As mentioned before, for the Azerbaijani authorities return to and readmission by Azerbaijan is not
a high priority. More important has been a national debate on immigrants (often irregular) coming to
Azerbaijan. 9 Although in Art. 75(1) of the EC-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement
(entered into force in 1999) Azerbaijan agreed to readmit any of its nationals illegally present on the
territory of a Member State, upon request by the latter and without further formalities (Aliyev 2013).
As far as the EU-Belarus readmission agreement is concerned, the political situation is not
conducive to success. It is unlikely that Belarus will be keen to sign the readmission agreement in the
light of recent difficulties concerning cooperation on the Belarussian-EU border (Titarenko 2013).
7
8
9
However, Armenia recently adopted (in December 2012) an Action Plan, which defines a number of activities oriented
towards implementation of the Armenia-EU RA training of the staff responsible for the implementation of the RA and
the establishment of an interdepartmental working group (Aghababyan 2013).
The so-called “package deals” have not been only an EU practice. Russia too uses incentives to make its main migrant
countries sign readmission agreements. For example, the agreement on visa free travel between Russia and Turkey signed
in 2010 was conditional upon the signing of a corresponding readmission agreement. Such positive conditionality has
also been used by Russia in negotiating readmission agreements with Central Asian states, e.g. Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan (Korneev 2012).
Therefore, it may be expected that return and readmission from Azerbaijan may become an important topic for Azerbaijani
policy makers.
10
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
4. Voluntary return and reintegration
Voluntary returns
It is not easy to assess the number of voluntary returns to individual countries as this category of
migrants is not separated from other types of migrants in statistical systems. The existing methodology
for estimating return migration is far from satisfactory and the numbers do not reflect the real scale of
this phenomenon. The main reason behind the lack of statistics on voluntary returns is the individual
character of this movement – return migrants do not usually count on state support. Rather they
depend on their own networks (family, friends etc.).
Assisted voluntary returns
Assistance in terms of voluntary returns has been offered to EaP countries by various entities: above
all, international organizations and host countries. This support is, however, fragmented and many
projects are realized on a very small scale. Among large-scale initiatives Programmes on Assisted
Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) run in EaP countries by IOM should be mentioned.
Figure 2 and 3 show the number of AVRR beneficiaries in the EaP countries in 2011.
Figure 2. EaP countries nationals returning home through AVRR in 2011
700
699
600
595
500
504
400
300
281
248
200
180
100
0
Armenia
Azerbaijan
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Belarus
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
11
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Figure 3. Third-country nationals who returned home
from EaP countries in frames of the AVRR in 2011
160
140
120
100
159
80
60
88
40
38
20
0
Belarus
Moldova
Ukraine
Source: Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration. Annual Report of
Activities 2011, 2012, IOM
Reintegration
In general, reintegration policies in the EaP states lack proper coordination. Table 4 presents a
review 10 of return and reintegration initiatives introduced recently in EaP countries. Those initiatives
can be divided into two groups: 1) funded by countries of origin themselves (towards their own
nationals); 2) funded by destination countries (or international organizations). The table below shows
that return and reintegration initiatives in the EaP states have been externally funded for the most part.
10
This review does not pretend to be exhaustive.
12
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
Table 4. Return and reintegration initiatives in the EaP countries
Country
Armenia
Internal Support
° Migrants’ Support
Centre
established
under
the
State
Migration Service;
2006-.
° Migration Resource
Centers established
within the system of
State Employment
Service
Agency,
since 2010.
Azerbaijan
Belarus
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
External Support
° Strengthening Armenia's migration management capacities,
with special focus on reintegration activities; through the EUArmenia Mobility Partnership, 2012-2014.
° Reinforcement of Management of Migratory Flows in Armenia;
AUNA and Czech NGO “People in Need” supported by the
European Commission and Czech Government, 2009-2012.
° Sustainable Reintegration after voluntary return; Armenian
Caritas in partnership with Belgian Ministry of Social Integration
through FEDASIL and Caritas International in Belgium; financed
by EU and Government of Belgium, 2006-2010.
° Migration and development; Caritas Armenia, funded by the
government of Liechtenstein and Caritas Austria, 2010-2013.
° ERSO (European Reintegration Support Organizations); Caritas
Armenia in partnership with Caritas Austria, 2008-2009.
° Returnees from Europe; Caritas Armenia with Caritas
Germany and Caritas Netherlands, funded by European
Returnee Fund, 2008-2013.
° Institutional Capacity Building in the Field of Migration
Information and Co-operation Regarding Reintegration of
Armenian Migrants; OFII, Armenian State Migration Service,
AAAS, FFAD; 2009-2011.
° RACOB-Return Assistance in Armenia-Cooperation OFIIBAMF; co-funded by the European Return Fund, AAAS in
partnership with FFAD, 2012-.
° Enhanced and Integrated Approach regarding Information on
Return and Reintegration in Countries of Origin (IRRICO II);
IOM, 2008-2010.
° AVR, IOM, 1994-.
° The Return Assistance Programme for Armenian Nationals
from Switzerland; Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, Federal Office for Migration of Switzerland,
State Migration Agency of Armenia, 2004-2009.
° Returning to Sources Project; FADF, National Agency for
Receiving of Foreigners and Migration under the Government
of France, Armenian Association of Social Aid in France,
State Migration Service of Armenia, 2005° Post Arrival Assistance to Armenian Returnees from the
Netherlands; Repatriation and Departure Service of the
Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, International Center for
Human Development, State Migration Service of Armenia,
2010-2012.
° Support to Migration Policy Development and Relevant
Capacity Building; British Council, in partnership with the
International Centre for Human Development and the
Migration Agency under the Republic of Armenia’s Ministry
of Territorial Administration, funded by the EU, 2007-2009.
° Preventing Irregular Migration from Armenia to Belgium; ICHD.
° AVR, IOM.
° AVR, IOM, 2007.
13
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Country
Internal Support
Georgia
Moldova
Ukraine
14
° Program on
Attracting
Remittances into the
Economy ‘PARE
1+1’ oriented
towards migrants
and their first-degree
relatives who want
to start or develop
their business in
Moldova;
coordinated by The
Moldovan Economic
Ministry’s
Organization for
Small and Medium
Enterprises Sector
Development, 20102012.
External Support
° Targeted Initiative Georgia (TIG). Support Reintegration of
Georgian Returning Migrants and the Implementation of EUGeorgia Readmission Agreement; through the EU-Georgia
Mobility Partnership; implementation: consortium of 9 EU
MS and IOM, 2010.
° Program for the professional personnel returned to the
homeland; International Center for Migration CIM/GIZ.
° Integration of Georgian Migrants into Labour Market; EC and UN.
° Migrant voluntary return and reintegration project (AVRR),
IOM, 2003
° Returning Migrants Reintegration in Georgia; DRC Danish
Refugee Council.
° Enhanced and Integrated Approach regarding Information on
Return and Reintegration in Countries of Origin (IRRICO II);
IOM, 2008-2010.
° Support to Implementation of EC Readmission Agreements with
the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine:
Facilitation of Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration
(SIREADA); launched by IOM, funded by the European Union
and co-funded by the Austrian Development Agency.
° Technical cooperation and capacity building of Ukrainian and
Moldovan governments for implementation of readmission
agreements with the European Union (GUMIRA).
° Strengthening Republic of Moldova capacity to manage
labour and return migration within the framework of the
mobility partnership with the EU; The Swedish Public
Employment Service, 2009-2011.
° Supporting the implementation of the migration and
development component of the EU-Moldova Mobility
Partnership, IOM.
° Effective governance of labour migration and its skills
dimensions; ILO; funded by the EU, 2011-2013.
° Enhanced and Integrated Approach regarding Information on
Return and Reintegration in Countries of Origin (IRRICO II);
IOM, 2008-2010.
° Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programmes; IOM, funded
by EU:
• Capacity Building in Migration Management: Ukraine
(Phase I and II), 2005-2008
• Technical cooperation and capacity building of Ukrainian
and Moldovan governments for implementation of
readmission agreements with the European Union
(GUMIRA), 2009-2011
• Support to Implementation of EC Readmission Agreements
with the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and
Ukraine: Facilitation of Assisted Voluntary Return and
Reintegration (SIREADA); launched by IOM, funded by
the European Union, 2011-2012.
° Effective governance of labour migration and its skills
dimensions; ILO; funded by the EU, 2011-2013
° Enhanced and Integrated Approach regarding Information on
Return and Reintegration in Countries of Origin (IRRICO I
and II), IOM; 2006-2010.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
Although numerous initiatives have been implemented by national, international and
nongovernmental organizations, they actually include limited return migrant categories. Some of the
programs have proved not to be very efficient e.g. the ERSO program implemented by Caritas in
Armenia in 2008-2009 only supported four families (Yeganyan 2013). Another problem is that return
and reintegration programs funded by host countries are implemented mainly by EU states, while a
considerable number of migrants originating from the EaP countries migrate to other post-Soviet states
(mainly Russia, but also Ukraine, Belarus) and those host countries do not provide immigrants with
any return and reintegration assistance. In Ukraine the question of reintegration is present in its
legislation, but there are actually no state programs aimed at the reintegration of return Ukrainians.
This approach is, however, partially justified when remembered that most migrants fall into the
category of short-term circular migrants, who do not usually need reintegration support.
The EaP countries differ as far as their engagement in return and reintegration actions towards their
own nationals is concerned. Taking into consideration the initiatives presented above and also the
presence of return and reintegration issues in their national policies, the Eastern Partnership states can
be divided into two groups:
1. countries where these issues are present in legislation and/or taking actions to facilitate return
migration of their own nationals – Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia;
2. countries not having any clear return and reintegration policies towards own nationals –
Azerbaijan, Belarus and Georgia.
The latter group can be further differentiated as more attention is paid to return and reintegration
issues in Georgia than in Belarus and Azerbaijan.
For most EaP states (apart from Belarus) return migration constitutes a more significant challenge
(from the point of view of the national interest of those countries) than the integration of foreign
nationals coming to these countries. However, even countries trying to facilitate the returns of their
citizens are, in reality, not ready to provide appropriate support for them. In most cases reintegration
of returning nationals is not supported by any special programs. The government does not facilitate
starting a new business by returnees nor does it provide them with any tax allowance to encourage
them to invest money at home. There are also no special institutions that provide return migrants with
information, organizational and legal support. For example most return migrants in Georgia decide to
migrate again not because they have intentionally chosen a circular pattern of migration, but rather as
a result of unacceptable integration conditions in Georgia (Tukhashvili 2013). Furthermore, the returns
are often a result of push factors in host countries rather than pull factors in countries of origin: this
was the case, for example, with Armenian migrants (H. Chobanyan 2013). This is particularly
important given the economic crisis in Europe. The key aspect of reintegration problems in EaP
countries is the difficulty of finding a job or of starting a business. Therefore, support in this field
should be treated as the most effective way of encouraging voluntary returns and of facilitating
reintegration. As long as the countries of origin are affected by high unemployment, low wages, tough
conditions for starting up and running a business and the lack of a free market, the reintegration of
return migrants will be hampered. At the same time, the above mentioned impediments mean that EaP
countries are reluctant to stimulate the return of their citizens. Therefore, the first step should involve
the enhancement of labor market conditions and should encourage emigrants to invest in businesses
back home, even while abroad.
Considering the possible changes, that might have taken place in their absence, there is a need for a
proper information campaign addressing return migrants. The reintegration of migrants in EaP states is
hindered, first by the lack of information concerning various aspects of life back in the home country –
e.g. opportunities on the labour market, domestic legislation, medical services, pension security etc. –
and, second, a lack of reintegration programs.
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
15
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
For Belarus reintegration is actually nonexistent. Only victims of trafficking are provided with
reintegration programs; the same is true of Azerbaijan. Return migration is not an important
phenomenon in Belarus and so reintegration is not a priority.
Actually, the question of reintegration has become an important research topic in Moldova,
Ukraine and Georgia only in the last years. New research projects devoted to this theme may
contribute to a growth of state interest in dealing with this issue.
Conclusions
The lack of appropriate data on return migration impedes the presentation of a proper comparative
picture in the EaP states. Genuine voluntary returns are beyond the scope of statistical analysis as
migrants usually migrate on their own without any external support that would allow their registration.
But even for forced return, it is not an easy task to compare the scale between EaP countries due to
certain legislative differences.
The problem of return and reintegration has been almost totally ignored in Belarus and Azerbaijan,
which, at least for now, do not rate this as an important social problem. For the time being they have
no readmission agreements signed (though there have been some talks concerning this issue) and
almost no return and reintegration initiatives have been introduced in regard to their citizens.
Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine seem to have understood the importance of return and
reintegration policies and are slowly changing their legislation and migration policies. However, even
for them, readmission agreements are still not standard, something which can be partially justified by
their sending and/or transit migration status.
Reintegration of return migrants constitutes a real challenge in most EaP states. However, it has
become a crucial issue for those countries only recently. High unemployment, low wages, tough
conditions for starting up and running a business and a lack of free market conditions do not help
return migrants to reintegrate. The key aspect of reintegration in the EaP countries concerns problems
with employment: both finding a job and starting a business. Therefore, support in those domains
should be treated as the most effective way of encouraging voluntary returns and facilitating
reintegration.
Among problems hindering policy development on return, readmission and reintegration issues
experts list, among others, lack of clear division of competence between different institutions dealing
with these issues, insufficient state and external funding and the lack of an appropriate agenda.
16
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
Return, readmission and reintegration in the Eastern Partnership countries: An overview
References
Aghababyan P. (2013). Legal Framework of Readmission, Return and Reintegration in the Republic of
Armenia. CARIM-East Explanatory Note.
Aliyev A., (2013). Readmission, return and reintegration: the legal framework in Azerbaijan. CARIMEast Explanatory Note
Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration. Annual Report of Activities 2011 (2012). IOM,
http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/free/AVRRreport2011FINAL_25Aug12.pdf
Chelidze N. (2013). Readmission, return and reintegration in Georgia. CARIM-East Explanatory Note.
Chobanyan H. (2013) Return Migration and Reintegration Issues: Armenia. CARIM-East Research
Report 2013/03.
EMN Glossary, http://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/Glossary/index.do
Ivakhnyuk I., Iontsev V. (2013). Return migration: the case of Russia. CARIM-East Explanatory Note.
Korneev O. (2012). “Deeper and Wider than a Common Space: European Union-Russia Cooperation
on Migration Management”, European Foreign Affairs Review 17, No. 4, pp. 605–624.
Pozniak O. (2013). Readmission, voluntary return and reintegration in Ukraine. CARIM-East
Explanatory Note.
Rumyantsev S. (2013). Azerbaijan: Readmission, Return and Reintegration in the Socio-Political
Context. CARIM-East Explanatory Note.
Tukhashvili M. (2013). Readmission, Return and Reintegration in Georgia. CARIM-East Explanatory
Note.
Ukrainian Refugee Council, http://bordermonitoring-ukraine.eu/files/2010/03/URC_Press_Release.pdf
Yeganyan R. (2013). Return and Readmission: the case of Armenia. CARIM-East Explanatory Note.
Yunusov A. (2013). Azerbaijan: the issue of readmission and interstate agreements. CARIM-East
Explanatory Note.
List of CARIM East explanatory notes on return, readmission and reintegration
(available at http://www.carim-east.eu/publications/explanatory-notes/)
Armenia
Petros Aghababyan – Legal Framework
Haykanush Chobanyan – Policy Framework
Ruben Yeganyan – Statistical characteristics
Azerbaijan
Alovsat Aliyev – Legal Framework
Sergey Rumyantsev – Policy Framework
Arif Yunusov – Statistical characteristics
Belarus
Oleg Bakhur – Legal Framework
Anastacia Bobrova, Liudmila Shakhotska – Statistical characteristics
Larissa Titarenko – Policy Framework
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS
17
Zuzanna Brunarska - Sergo Mananashvili – Agnieszka Weinar
Georgia
Natia Chelidze – Policy Framework
Gaga Gabrichidze – Legal Framework
Mirian Tukhashvili – Statistical characteristics
Republic of Moldova
Tatiana Ciumas – Legal Framework
Vladimir Ganta – Statistical characteristics
Valeriu Mosneaga – Policy Framework
Ukraine
Lyudmila Davidovych – Legal Framework
Kateryna Ivaschenko Stadnik – Policy Framework
Oleksii Pozniak – Statistical characteristics
Russian Federation
Vladimir Iontsev, Irina Ivakhnyuk – Statistical characteristics
Vladimir Mukomel – Policy Framework
Vadim Voinicov – Legal Framework
18
CARIM-East RR 2013/17 © 2013 EUI, RSCAS